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 ... 98  Next >
41
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 06:19:43 PM »
If you did the experiment why didn't you take a video? We all have cameras and camcorders in our pockets now.

The person in the video in the OP very clearly makes a straight line path away from the moon's phase and it does not point at the sun.

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 06:13:21 PM »
because china's number one priority for that region is stability.  they're not into millions of north korean refugees crossing their border.

I'm pretty sure that allowing North Korea to build hydrogen bombs and long range missiles while constantly threatening to start wars isn't very stable to the region. I will take a guess that the most important politician in China probably knows more than you, Congress, or anyone at the US State department, on China's real reasons for supporting North Korea.

43
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 05:59:40 PM »
Why are you constantly coming back to this? It is not very thought out and does not tell us anything. Even if I saw the moon pointing at the sun, it does not explain this video where the moon is not pointing at the sun.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 18, 2017, 05:34:45 PM »
Quote
Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

You do realize that Congress, past presidents, and many foreign countries have all been calling on China to rein in North Korea for a long time now, right?

North Korea's existence relies on the massive support given to it by China, and it would be interesting to know why China cannot stop giving that support.

45
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 04:37:23 PM »
The effect of the T-Rex works just as well if you are stationary and the T-Rex is rotated in position. So it would work at any distance as long as you could still distinguish the features of the T-Rex, say through a telescope.

That is not recreating the scene.

Quote
And in the case of the sun, it is the earth that is rotating in order to change apparent position in the sky of the relatively stationary sun, so no, the sun would not need to change its distance from the earth to create the perspective effects referred to in this thread.

No. The sun would need to change its distance to you very significantly if we are going to say that it can change its angles like the end of a long hallway. A rotating earth doesn't change your distance to the sun. It's really just a rotating camera. Rotating your camera around doesn't change perspective angles of distant bodies.

The angles don't change between the two railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene when the camera makes a 360 degree roll upside down, nor does the angle between the vanishing point of the railroad track and a streetlight above your head change when the camera rolls around. The angles between bodies do not change at all.

46
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 03:28:34 PM »
You do realize that in order for this to be a perspective effect the sun would need to change its distance to you significantly throughout the day. The 93,000,000 mile sun in the Round Earth model does not change distance to you appreciably throughout the day, and so a comparisons in this thread to one end of the hallway seeming lower than the ceiling above you is inappropriate.

The T-Rex illusion, for example, would not happen if that T-Rex were 93,000,000 miles away in that scene -- you would need to travel for millions of miles around the T-Rex to recreate it (assuming you could see it).

The sun is so far away from you in the Round Earth model that there aren't really any "perspective effects" that it could apply to it. The excuse of a perspective effect for this phenomena under RET is an absurdity, and is in no possible way a mechanism for this "celestial sphere".

47
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 01:37:25 PM »

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

Apart from you actually trying out the string experiment it would seem, where your pathological dodging of the issue has become a running joke.

Again, why should I use a string that can bend when the ends are forced between two points rather than a ruler or board that cannot bend? Another attempt at deception?

48
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 18, 2017, 12:07:19 AM »

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

Any evidence you can offer that there are? Each model of airplane is limited as to how high it can fly because the atmosphere gets thinner with higher altitude. What evidence do you have for a more optically dense medium above the atmosphere? Or are you arguing from your theory to suggest that something is or at least could be out there? That does not sound very Zetetic to me.

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

49
Stop avoiding. Research please.

50
Such as?  Is there anything you believe to be incorrect?

I asked for the observational data the model is based on. Surely they did not just assume that the earth was round and nothing more. Are you going to link the research for us or will you keep trying to tap dance your way out of this paper bag?

51
By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?
Why could you not look or ask them?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/about-sun-calculator.html

I couldn't find any of their observational research on the url you linked. Can you point it out for us?

52
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 17, 2017, 10:33:14 PM »
i wasn't aware that gallup made election predictions.  where do you have gallup predicting a 98% chance of a hillary victory?

Gallup was predicting overwhelming support for Hillary before the election. All of those polling groups were. Why should your poll mean anything to us considering their checkered past?

53
By the way, I might not feel it is worth my while to gather corroborating evidence for the times of daylight posted in the initial post in this thread, or to prove or disprove any similar claims you might make, as I trust the date and time calculators. If you don't, that is of course your prerogative.

I am willing to trust the research dateandtime.com has done to come up with their model for daylight. Can you link us to their observational research please?

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 17, 2017, 09:17:04 PM »
http://www.gallup.com/poll/208640/majority-no-longer-thinks-trump-keeps-promises.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

yeah weird it's almost as if trump just said whatever he thought would get him elected.

Those poll groups were also saying that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the election and that many of the states that voted Trump were voting Democrat. Why should your link mean anything now?

55
If we stated that the sun was in this location at this place at this time, and that it disproved the globe earth model, we would be asked for evidence of that, too.

Why are you any different?

You seem to ask for proof or records of all places and all times based on direct observations. That is impossible to provide.

I am asking for exactly the same thing that would be asked of us if we made claims that the sun can be seen in certain places at certain times and locations which proved the Round Earth model wrong.

56
If we stated that the sun was in this location at this place at this time, and that it disproved the globe earth model, we would be asked for evidence of that. Why are you any different?

57
Why should we assume that the globe earth daylight patterns hold in reality when no one has been able to post observational records to corroborate them?

58
Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 17, 2017, 05:17:50 PM »
So you admit you don’t see what we’re saying (10th dan in missing the point), you won’t do the simple experiment that Gary and others have offered as you don’t know when the moon will be in the daytime sky, well the “children’s” moon is often in the sky,
 •  Look within a week or so of the date of full moon.
•  Before full moon, look for the daytime moon in the afternoon.
•  After full moon, look for the daytime moon in the morning
(waxing gibbous tonight 6th April so you are on, although being near the equinox the discrepancy won't be profound).

A full moon with the sun in the sky isn't supposed to ever happen in the Round Earth model. You want me to perform an experiment that cannot happen?

Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that a certain experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

Quote
In the meantime answer Nirmala and my earlier point, does your model explain the problem you see with the angles?

I would say that the effect is a confirmation of the long-postulated Flat Earth mechanism which places the sun lower than it actually is over a Flat Earth. There are several mechanisms which have been proposed over the years. Mechanisms have been proposed ranging from an atmospheric effect, to the Electromagnetic Accelerator which bend light rays, to a perspective effect, and further analysis and consideration would need to be conducted to say which effect this observation most strongly supports. The video in the OP shows that the sun actually does appear lower than where the moon thinks it is. If this mechanism did not exist, the sun would at all times be above the surface of the earth and night and day could not exist.

I was curious as to whether "an atmospheric effect" could make the sun appear lower than it actually is, so I did some research on light refraction including the fast paced videos on this site: http://byjus.com/physics/why-do-stars-twinkle/

It turns out that given the position of the sun above the atmosphere in both the flat earth model and the round earth model, refraction will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position (unless the sun is directly overhead in which case it will have no effect at all). When light travels from an optically less dense medium to an optically more dense medium it is bent towards the normal (defined as a line perpendicular to the line forming the boundary between the two mediums). This is a long established and experimentally proven principle of the behavior of light.

If you draw out the position of the sun, atmosphere and an observer on earth, this bending is always in the direction that makes the sun appear higher in the sky. This does explain why in the round earth model, the sun appears above the horizon even after it has actually set, as again any refraction caused by the sunlight hitting the atmosphere will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position. This also rules out refraction as an explanation for why the sun sets at all in the flat earth model because if refraction is involved, it would actually make it less likely for the sun to appear to have set in a flat earth model.

So, refraction cannot be reasonably used as an explanation for what is observed in the original video.

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

59
There are no large scale records of sunrise and sunset across the world. You are assuming that daylight would reflect a globe earth when you make that circle, rather than basing the shape on observed reports of the sun.

This doesn't make Nirmala wrong, nor does it mean we do not know sunrise and sunset times.  Sunrise and sunset times are easily corroborated.  According to all the observers I know, there is no issue with sunrise and sunset times.

According to all the observers I know, they haven't looked at the sunrise and sunset times that happen at every point on earth throughout the year.

60
There are no large scale records of sunrise and sunset across the world. You are assuming that daylight would reflect a globe earth when you make that circle, rather than basing the shape on observed reports of the sun.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 98  Next >