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: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 110  Next >
41
Quote from: inquisitive
Why do you not give details?  Without that we must assume you have none.

We gave created an entire website for you with a literature section containing links to books and journals, most of which perform or reference a water convexity experiment.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 16, 2017, 03:30:15 AM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.
http://www.geosats.com/lookangle.html
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_the_Sun
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Thise are calculators, not "measurements of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times." Please post the real proof this time, thanks!

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:37:21 AM »
In order for an airplane to descend into the vanishing point it must increase its distance to you many times fold. That cannot happen with the sun in the Round Earth model. The sun is 92 million miles away at all times. In order to cause it to "descend" with perspective it must also increase its distance to you by many times fold.

This is why perspective effects are impossible in the Round Earth model. The sun is not changing its distance by any significant amount to cause them.

but it doesn't descend because of perspective.  perspective has nothing to do with re sunsets.  isn't that the fe model? 

i feel like i must not be getting what you're asking.  in re cosmology, the sun is fixed, and the earth is rotating.  the sun "sets" because of that rotation.

You brought up the 2 point perspective of the corners of your ceiling like it meant something in relation to what is happening to the celestial bodies for the celestial sphere effect.

i brought up the ceiling wall thing as a simple demonstration that straight lines do not always appear straight to us.

i dunno what sunsets have to do with anything.

I've asked for an example of where straight lines appear to make a curve like an arc, and for an explanation for the supposed celestial sphere effect. Fail on two counts.

44
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:28:12 AM »
In order for an airplane to descend into the vanishing point it must increase its distance to you many times fold. That cannot happen with the sun in the Round Earth model. The sun is 92 million miles away at all times. In order to cause it to "descend" with perspective it must also increase its distance to you by many times fold.

This is why perspective effects are impossible in the Round Earth model. The sun is not changing its distance by any significant amount to cause them.

but it doesn't descend because of perspective.  perspective has nothing to do with re sunsets.  isn't that the fe model? 

i feel like i must not be getting what you're asking.  in re cosmology, the sun is fixed, and the earth is rotating.  the sun "sets" because of that rotation.

You brought up the 2 point perspective of the corners of your ceiling, such as when standing in the middle of a long hallway, like it meant something in relation to what is happening to the celestial bodies for the celestial sphere effect.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:18:41 AM »
In order for an airplane to fly away and descend into the vanishing point to perspective it must increase its distance to you many times fold. That cannot happen with the sun in the Round Earth model. The sun is 92 million miles away at all times. In order to cause it to "descend" with perspective it must also increase its distance to you by many times fold.

This is why such perspective effects are impossible in the Round Earth model. The sun is not changing its distance by any significant amount to cause them.

The hallway effect is not really valid. The sun does not increase or decrease its height due to perspective over the course of the day under the Round Earth model, so "perspective" as an explanation for the celestial sphere is bunk.

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:10:39 AM »
it's actually just basic geometry.

This perspective tangent doesn't even make sense. How could the sun rise and set to perspective as it travels across the sky in the Round Earth model if the sun is 92 million miles away at all times. In order for an airplane above you to descend into the vanishing point it must increase its distance from you.

47
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 11:26:27 PM »
stand in front of the midpoint of a wall in your room.  look directly in front of you at the top edge of your room, the straight line formed by the intersection of the wall and the ceiling.  notice that this bit of edge directly in front of you has no slope.  it looks like a horizontal line.

now turn your head to the right and look at the corner of the room.  notice that this line appears to point up from the corner and to the left.  it appears to have a negative slope.

now turn your head to the left corner and notice that the line appears to point up from the corner and to the right.  it has a positive slope.

since the slope of this line appears to change from one end of the room to the other, then by definition it does not appear to be a straight line.  ipso facto ergo sum ad infinitium (that's latin for "i proved it my dude").

There is no curve in any of that. At what point do the straight lines curve in any straight line perspective scene? If we compare any part of that scene with a ruler, the corner is straight. It is only the orientation of the line in relation to us which has changed. The line never curves at all!

Based on these ridiculous explanations it is fairly clear that this "celestial sphere" cannot be defended at all.

48
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 11:19:25 PM »
You have a video recorder and camera in your pocket.
Not really. 

Quote
Please take a video or picture of these curved "straight lines".
Why should I go to the effort when we all know full well you won't understand what is shown?

Quote
I do not see any straight lines that appear to curve in my home.
So is that a yes or no to my prior question?

If you are unable to show us, or even give a coherent explanation for why straight lines would appear as curved in euclidean space, then I am going to have to ask you to stop posting and wasting everyone's time.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:30:42 PM »
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:29:11 PM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?
Refer to the various websites that do.  Also see those that give the angles for aligning satellite dishes.

Provide the links rather than saying "various websites." Thank you.

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:17:39 PM »
The operation of GPS systems is known, understood and documented.

Also the measurement of the angle of the sun from multiple positions at different times proves a round earth.

Why not post the measurements for us then?

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:16:09 PM »
I'm just trying to understand the epistemology of non-mainstream cosmologies. If I could ask a further question, how do you decide on whether a source of information is reliable enough to include in your wiki? I know that you said you have discussions about this, but what are your criteria for inclusion?

We talk about it and investigate its veracity, like we did here. It is now up to us to come up with a legitimate rebuttal to the information 3DGeek provided, and if one cannot be created then the information won't go into the wiki.

53
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:10:43 PM »

Please provide a picture or video of these curved "straight lines" on your ceiling or floor. I believe you may be hallucinating.
Using the straight line that is the joining of the wall and ceiling, are you stating that while looking away from center to either the left or right, that line does not 'appear' to descend as the distance increases?

You have a video recorder and camera in your pocket. Please take a video or picture of these curved "straight lines". I do not see any straight lines that appear to curve in my home.

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 08:32:26 PM »
That's not a good argument.  Sure, if they'd ONLY been asked to make movie props - then that's what they'd have done.   But these defense contractors (some of which I've worked for BTW) say very clearly that they developed the REAL lunar lander, the REAL Saturn V launcher, the REAL Mars rovers.  Their employees built the machines in such a way that they could go to the moon (or land on mars or whatever).

NASA is in complete control of what is happening at their bases. NASA is pulling the strings and can manipulate it all without needing everyone to be "in on it".

Honeywell engineers, for example, may believe they they are making a device that will be used to detect carbon monoxide or smoke on the Spacelab, but NASA patents the technology and instead uses it for profit.

Computer Science Corporation programmers may be told, for example, that they were programming legitimate Apollo simulation software. Rather than used for legitimate training purposes, however, that simulation software is then taken and played back in mission control for the actual mission. In fact, Apollo flight director Gene Krantz let it slip in the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option' that mission control (including himself) could not tell the difference between a simulated lunar landing and a real one. He said that the sims were so realistic in every respect, that it was impossible to discern the difference.

Quote
Do you seriously imagine that their engineers couldn't tell the difference between building a movie prop and an actual machine that could produce five million lbs of thrust?

So EITHER they are in on the conspiracy - or they really built machines with the necessary capacity to do the things NASA wanted them to do...and now you're including the 400,000 NASA employees (at the time of Apollo) AND all of those contractors.

Even if some machines were built do do what they needed to do, it does not follow that the machines were actually used for that purpose. NASA could order a production Curiosity Rover and then either trash it, sell it to a museum, sell off parts to a university, or parade it in front of politicians as they beg for more money. The design firm doesn't know.

The research that goes behind creating a real Curiosity Rover is helpful, too. Everything designed by anyone NASA contracts or hires belongs to NASA. NASA works to develop new technologies so they can proceed to patent and profit off of everything, as they do. NASA maintains a huge catalog of technologies it has helped to create, and maintains extensive business connections with large multi-nationals to license out or sell its tech. NASA invites the most prestigious universities to send its best and brightest students to intern at NASA so that NASA can take advantage of their creativity by patenting all of their creations for its own greed.

Quote
I think you're just playing with words here.  What's the difference between a prediction that's confirmed by an experiment versus one that's confirmed by an observation that had not been made before the prediction?

The OED defines "experiment" as:

   "A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact."

...pointing a telescope at a star and making a measurement of it's red-shift to test the Hubble hypothesis is an experiment.

Looking at a star through a telescope is called an Observational Study, and is different than an Experimental Study. See: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-observational-study-and-experiments/

Quote
Observational Study vs Experiments

Observational study and experiments are the two major types of study involved in research. The main difference between these two types of study is in the way the observation is done.

In experiments, the researcher will undertake some experiment and not just make observations. In observational study, the researcher simply makes an observation and arrives at a conclusion.

In an experiment, the researcher manipulates every aspect for deriving a conclusion. In observational study, no experiment is conducted. In this type of study, the researcher relies more on data collected.

In observational study, the researcher just observes what has happened in the past and what is happening now and draws conclusions based on these data. But in experiments, the researcher observes things through various studies. In other words, it can be said that there is human intervention in experiments whereas there is no human intervention in observational study.

Quote
But there is a difference between GPS and Loran which is key here.   In Loran (which I actually worked on BTW) - the towers are fixed.  You know their latitudes and longitudes from fixed, unchanging data.   With GPS, the signal sources are moving...very rapidly in fact.  Each satellite is in a different orbit.   The timestamps (along with the unchanging speed of light) allow you to figure out how far you are away from each signal source - but that doesn't tell you where you are unless you know where the signal source is right now.  Hence GPS receivers have to calculate the orbital parameters of each satellite to know where they all are at any given moment.  Older hand-held GPS units actually display that information - but newer ones don't bother.  It's actually even more subtle than that - knowing that the gravitational field of the Earth isn't uniform and that the satellites are in rapid motion, Einstein's theories of Special and General relativity have to be included into the calculations.

All of this sophistication is done by software engineers at Google, TomTom, Apple and others...so either they - and all of their management - are all in on this conspiracy - or the Earth is round.

To account for special relativity effects for extremely fast moving beacons, it may helpful to have he velocity of the beacon embedded in the signal, but all that data would tell me is that the beacon is moving very fast over the Flat Earth. You will need to show that the data can only mean that it is an actual orbit around a Round Earth.

Quote
The thing is that the ability to have a clock that ran for long enough, and with enough precision on a rolling, tossing deck of a ship was impossible until the 1750's.   So in practice, you didn't know the time at the Prime Meridian with enough accuracy to navigate.

However, there were other approaches to this, not easy to do, but in common use on sailing ships for the previous 100 years at least...which are outlined in some detail in the Wikipedia article and book that I recommended to you.

I didn't see anything in the wikipedia article you linked to except some references to some old methods using the moon or Jupiter as a substitute and mentions that they were difficult methods and not used often. The methods were not explained. If you have any critique with more substance, please share it.

55
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 06:26:39 PM »
model29, I thought about your experiment a little, and I believe that I could modify what you propose and make it fairly accurate.

1st, you need to know the sun's elevation angle. This can be determined by looking at your own shadow and measuring it... might have to have a friend's help, then use some geometry to calculate the sun's angle (opposite angle to personal height or adjacent angle to shadow length). 2nd you will need a protractor. By setting the sun at the 0 degree reference point, estimate the moon's angle on the protractor. 3rd, use the protractor again, but orient it 90 degrees with the horizon being 0 degrees, and once again estimate the moon's angle.

Now in your hallway, set up a flash light (sun) above your line of sight at the angle calculated above, set up your moon at the angles recorded in 2 and 3 above, be sure to stand in the appropriate spot so flashlight and ball/moon match the recorded information and that your flashlight in the darkened hall is shining at the ball/moon. This should get you the appropriate phase angle viewed by the real moon above.
Depends how exact one wants to be I guess.  Either way, the "lit portion of a ball appearing not to line up with the light source effect" can be easily demonstrated in a room or hallway with straight walls.

Next time the moon and this effect is visible, hold a small ball out at arm's length toward the moon while standing in direct sunlight.  The "phase" of the ball will match that of the moon and also "appear" to not line up with the sun.

Why does a straight line turn curved in the sky?
For the same reason the straight line consisting of the wall meeting the ceiling (or floor) appears curved while looking left or right at it while sitting here at my desk.

Please provide a picture or video of these curved "straight lines" on your ceiling or floor. I believe you may be hallucinating.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 15, 2017, 06:07:43 PM »
Their skepticism was about the EXTENT of the opposition's capabilities - not about whether they could orbit a satellite or put a man into space...which is why (for example) the Soviets put a radio transmitter onto Sputnik that was tuned to a frequency that any amateur radio ham could pick up.   I vividly recall my father (who repaired TV's and radios for a living) spending all night building a 20MHz radio receiver so that his three year old son (me!) could listen in on the sounds from it every 90 minutes as it rose above the horizon and tracked across the sky in a matter of a minute or two.  At that young age, I couldn't understand why it was important - but my Father told me "This is the most important thing you'll ever hear!" and it turns out to be pretty much my first memory.   As it turns out, he was probably wrong about the significance of it...but he was no fool.

There were a lot of people questioning the claims of the other side, don't kid yourself.

Quote
Actually, NASA has over 17,000 employees of it's own - they are NOT entirely composed of NGA's.   Also, I've worked on projects for NASA (I built simulators to train Space Shuttle pilots and the people who operate the Canadian robot arm on the ISS.  I've met and worked with astronauts who've been to the ISS...and they don't seem to me to be at all dishonest people.

NASA is very heavy on contractors. 88% of their budget goes towards paying contractors:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/us/nasa-s-reliance-on-contractors-is-seen-as-eroding-its-capabilities.html

Quote
NASA's reliance on contractors is shown both by the composition of its workforce and by the portion of its budget going to procurement, officials said. The percentage of NASA's $11 billion budget devoted to procurement has increased to 88 percent, according to Mr. Colvin and the Administration intends to expand commercial involvement in the space program.

Quote
Deathbed confessions are quite common - and generally turn out to be true. See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_confession

Your explanation might explain why SOME people do not confess - but it cannot remotely explain why not a single one of the hundreds of thousands of people who would have had knowledge of this supposed conspiracy ever admitted it.

Why would "hundreds of thousands" of people need to be in on it? NASA instructs a contractor to build a museum prop lunar lander by x date. The contractor isn't in the position to know the purpose of this lander, or whether it will used in a fraudulent moon film.

Quote
That's not a very nice thing to say!  Wow!

Anyway - what you say is untrue.  Astronomers (some of my best friends are astronomers) do indeed do controlled experiments.   For example, the idea that the expansion of the universe results in a measurable red-shift in starlight.  That was a "hypothesis" - which was then tested by performing the experiment of looking at the spectra of light from many stars who's distance could be estimated by other means.   When the degree of red shift was found to accurately match the theoretical values - the hypothesis was proven and "The Hubble Hypothesis" became "Hubbles' Law".   Yes, they are scientists - yes, they do experiments.  No - they are not idiots.   No, not a single one of them believes in the Flat Earth and if they are conspiracists then not a single one of them has ever blabbed about it.

Observing the stars isn't an experiment.That's an observation. An experiment means you did something more than observe.

Do chemists observe chemicals at a distance and go off writing fantasies about the chemicals behave and how they are structured? No. Controlled experimentation to study the subject directly is required.

Quote
Yes - but what about the software engineers who write the software to decode the signals from these radio sources and the hardware designers at places like Apple, Sony?   They have to write software that calculates positions of satellites - to assume that this is possible without understanding that the Earth is round is...beyond naive.  Honestly - either all of those people are in on the conspiracy - or there is no conspiracy.

The signals are just timestamps that tell you how far you are away from the broadcasting device. Location is determined by triangulation of three beacons.

Before GPS satellites the military used a world-wide network of towers called the LORAN system, which operated on the same principle. This principle has nothing to do with the shape of the world.

Quote
Again, you're assuming that once the satellite is launched - that's the end of the story.   Of course it isn't.  Every one of those Dish Network electronics packs is running software written by someone who doesn't work for NASA or any of the launch companies that alters the dipole on the satellite disk to track the signal.  Really - the business of making and selling satellite TV receivers REQUIRES that you know how the satellites are placed - and if the world is really flat then an awful lot of people at Dish Network are "in on the conspiracy".   It's naive to assume otherwise.

Pointing a satellite dish into the sky does not tell you that the broadcasting device is in orbit around a globe.

Quote
Many of your fellow FE'ers believe that.  I guess you personally do not - but if you don't, you have to explain how it is that antarctic explorers and the people who live for extended periods at the south pole are "in on the conspiracy".

I believe in the bi-polar model, so i don't have any issues with those claims.

Quote
Again, your understanding of the very basics here is sadly lacking for someone who claims to be an expert in FET.   Navigation is a hell of a lot more than knowing which direction you're facing (which is really all you'd know from seeing which direction Polaris is in).   It's about calculating your latitude and longitude - from stellar, solar and lunar position observations which allow you to deduce the local time and therefore your position.

Those calculations - in fact the very way you measure the things that go into those calculations - are based on the presumption that the earth is an approximate sphere and that it rotates every 24 hours and that the sun is a VERY long way away so it's parallax may be ignored.

Imagining navigation to be as simple as you say is ridiculous.   Really - go learn some of the very BASIC facts of how ships navigated before GPS and other radio navigation aids before saying this kind of nonsense.

Really Tom - for someone who claims to be an expert (possibly THE expert) on FET, you really should get to understand the counter arguments.

I strongly recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation to understand how exactly ships navigated before around 1900.  If you take the time to understand what this is saying - then you'll realise that the technique described cannot possibly work with FET being the way it is claimed to be.

So, again, you're left with literally MILLIONS of people today, and going back to the 1600's and earlier who are a part of this conspiracy - or the earth is round.

I also recommend the excellent book "Latitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time" by Dava Sobel - which explains the great lengths that people went to in order to navigate at sea.   It's a great read...and leaves an awful lot for you FE'ers to explain.

Altitude of Polaris above the horizon is equal to the observers' Geographical Latitude

To calculate your longitude, you simply need to work out the time difference between noon at your location and noon at the Prime Meridian.

I don't see how either are impossible on a Flat Earth.

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:01:59 PM »
So, the primary research methodology for finding material for the wiki is a simple Google search?

No, we discuss its veracity first. Did you not see the part where I said discussion?

58
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:49:15 PM »
Apologies, that was poorly phrased.

What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well?

Sure, there is evidence from those programs as well. We have mostly just been adding things as they come up in discussion.


59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:43:08 PM »
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

60
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:39:58 PM »
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.

So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles?  How is that possible?

The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 110  Next >