*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2015, 06:21:34 PM »
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium.
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?  Please use small words if you can.  You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2015, 07:11:12 PM »
You don't think ahead far enough to realise that people might question you.

You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium?  How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift?  Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.

By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length.  They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B.  If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium.  Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Yendor

  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2015, 07:29:51 PM »
No one with even a trace of authority on scientific matters questions that the Doppler Effect would occur if the waves passed through an accelerating medium.
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?  Please use small words if you can.  You know how slow I can be sometimes.

Radio signals transmitted from stationary towers also have Doppler shift caused by the ionosphere. It's easy to find...look it up.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2015, 08:55:51 PM »
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?  Please use small words if you can.  You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Sure: If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable. That is, of course, providing you with the generous assumption that it even is consistent, but we might as well give you that for now to make it easier for you.

See, little Timmy? That wasn't too hard.

You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium?  How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift?  Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.
I agree. That's why I posted a Wikipedia link and pointed out what exactly markjo was missing. Judging from his answer above, he understood me, so I'm not sure why you think you lying about the conversation to date will help anyone.

By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length.  They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B.  If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium.  Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. Conveniently, that's exactly where your analogy breaks down.

Something something intellectual dishonesty.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2015, 08:59:32 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2015, 11:03:48 PM »
I'm not sure why you think you lying about the conversation to date will help anyone.

You're beautiful.

Here is how this conversation got started:

For starters, how about the fact that [Doppler Shifting of GPS and other satellite signals] 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.
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.

Next:

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?
I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.

After a little more back and forth, Markjo asked: "Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?"

And finally my question: "if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium?  How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift?" 

I was trying to be as specific as possible with my question in order to avoid the part where you find some weird reason to obfuscate the actual discussion, but that obviously backfired.  You still haven't answered the question; you're just doing the usual song and dance of being crazy smug about not explaining yourself.  I don't understand how, in an accelerating medium, a stationary observer can receive signals from a stationary transmitter and get both a redshift and a blueshift at different times.

I'm also a bit confused.  Your original argument was that the Doppler shifting should exist because "The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists."  Your new argument to Markjo is, "If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable."  Which is it?  Is it that the ground transmitters are rigged to give false signals, or do you prefer your original argument that they're a consequence of motion through an accelerating medium?

By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length.  They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B.  If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium.  Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. Conveniently, that's exactly where your analogy breaks down.

Something something intellectual dishonesty.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter if we consider the trains to be accelerating through a stationary medium, or stationary in an accelerating medium.  The effect is the same so long as the trains are stationary with respect to one another.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2015, 01:43:38 AM »
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite?  Please use small words if you can.  You know how slow I can be sometimes.
Sure: If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable. That is, of course, providing you with the generous assumption that it even is consistent, but we might as well give you that for now to make it easier for you.

See, little Timmy? That wasn't too hard.
To which swirling medium are you referring? Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2015, 03:34:25 AM »
Here is how this conversation got started:

[snip]
Yes, thank you. I will generously assume that your omission of a significant chunk of the conversation is purely for the sake of brevity, and take this as a retraction on your part. Shame that you couldn't have just been honest to begin with.

I was trying to be as specific as possible with my question in order to avoid the part where you find some weird reason to obfuscate the actual discussion, but that obviously backfired.
Yes, trying to launch a strawman attack and lying about your opponent's position does tend to backfire. You'd think you'd learn that by now.

You still haven't answered the question; you're just doing the usual song and dance of being crazy smug about not explaining yourself.  I don't understand how, in an accelerating medium, a stationary observer can receive signals from a stationary transmitter and get both a redshift and a blueshift at different times.
I can think of two scenarios: Either the acceleration of the medium changes, or we're not considering the same transmitter-observer combinations. The former is a fundamental concept in FET. The latter is just me rubbing your lack of imagination in your face.

I'm also a bit confused.  Your original argument was that the Doppler shifting should exist because "The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists."  Your new argument to Markjo is, "If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable."
Yes, your "confusion" stems from the fact that you really want to think that I made a new argument. I didn't. If you stopped trying so hard on trying to imagine what it might be that I'm thinking and just focused on reading what I'm saying, that would be pretty clear.

Then again, that would require you to approach the subject with a little bit of honesty.

Which is it?  Is it that the ground transmitters are rigged to give false signals, or do you prefer your original argument that they're a consequence of motion through an accelerating medium?
It's neither, of course. The ground transmitters are not "rigged" in any way. The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter if we consider the trains to be accelerating through a stationary medium, or stationary in an accelerating medium.  The effect is the same so long as the trains are stationary with respect to one another.
You're not misunderstanding me, you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation. You're correct, it doesn't matter if the trains are accelerating in a stationary medium or if they're stationary in an accelerating medium. The reason it doesn't matter is that both these scenarios are fundamentally inaccurate. We're looking at accelerating trains in an accelerating medium.

To which swirling medium are you referring?
Air and aether.

Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim. That said, I would expect no two transmitter-receiver pairs to exhibit the same Doppler shift. Therefore, your question can be answered with "because FM radio and cell phone transmitters are not GPS transmitters"
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 03:43:29 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2015, 12:26:42 PM »
Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?
I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim. That said, I would expect no two transmitter-receiver pairs to exhibit the same Doppler shift. Therefore, your question can be answered with "because FM radio and cell phone transmitters are not GPS transmitters"
Interesting.  I was under the impression that the general consensus among FE'ers is that cell phone transmitters are GPS transmitters.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2015, 03:05:59 PM »
Interesting.  I was under the impression that the general consensus among FE'ers is that cell phone transmitters are GPS transmitters.
Where did you get that idea from?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2015, 04:45:09 PM »
I'm no longer going to entertain the absurd, and absurdly vague, attack that I'm lying to you about anything.  If you believe that my verbatim quotes of you in this thread are inaccurate, then point it out specifically.  If you think I've omitted an important quote from you that is apropos of my question, then point it out specifically.

The verbosity of my question had two functions: 1) to be as transparent and specific as possible about what I believe your argument to be, precisely to avoid your common misconception that I'm intentionally misrepresenting you; and, 2) to make it easier for you to identify what those discrepancies are if they exist.  That way you can say things like, "That isn't accurate.  I reject one of your premises, specifically that 'their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction[...]and[...]remains constant.'"  Then I could have said something like, "Ah, I see, that does change things.  It wasn't obvious to me that you think the aether is in motion.  I was under the impression that the aether was believed to be stationary while the flat earth accelerated through it.  My mistake.  Now here are arguments..."

Each time I start a discussion with you I try to find a new way to bend over backwards to be as fair to your arguments as possible and as transparent as I can be about both my own arguments, and my characterizations of yours.  And each time you somehow find a way not only to ignore that good faith, but also to use that transparency to call me a liar.  It happens the same way every time.  I try to correctly summarize your position openly, and then when I get something wrong or misunderstand you, you have the audacity to claim that it's evidence of of dishonesty rather than seeing it for what it is: a genuine effort to be as accurate and fair to your argument as possible.

You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium?  How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift?  Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.

By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length.  They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B.  If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium.  Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.
You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. We're looking at accelerating trains in an accelerating medium.

This would have been the most direct way to state why you think your argument and my understanding of your argument diverge.  And I did it all without a string of obfuscating, petty personal attacks!  Amazing.  Would the train analogy be satisfactory to you if we included high speed winds of varying directions? 

I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support the claim that the aether is also accelerating.  I thought that the aether was supposed to be stationary while the Earth accelerated through it.

Also, I think that your explanation causes more questions than it answers.  Sure, if the aether was accelerating in just the right ways to cause the same patterns and timing of redshifts and blueshifts to an observer, then it would look like a satellite.  But 1) it still begs the question of what causes the aether behaves in such a manner, and 2) it's just a truism: if a thing that isn't a satellite mimics all of the observable phenomenon associated with satellites, then it will appear to be a satellite.  That's not really an explanation; it just avoids the question.  The question is how.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2015, 08:19:40 PM »
I'm no longer going to entertain the absurd, and absurdly vague, attack that I'm lying to you about anything.
Of course you won't. That won't stop me from pointing out the fact of the matter. You're incapable of upholding an honest discussion, and so you don't deserve much consideration.

If you believe that my verbatim quotes of you in this thread are inaccurate, then point it out specifically.  If you think I've omitted an important quote from you that is apropos of my question, then point it out specifically.
ok:

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.

Specifically, you decided to omit the entire section of the discussion where I substantiate my position, present supporting articles, and explain why the articles support my case. You then claimed that no substantiation was presented [verbatim: "Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation."]. That's not just inaccurate. You're either genuinely incapable of keeping track of what you're reading (which I do not believe to be the case), or you're lying, as you're well known to do.

I'm not going to waste my time on your pathetic pity rant about how sad you feel because, despite trying oh-so-hard, you still fail to avoid mounting ridiculous strawman attacks. If it's really such a burden to respond to my posts and not your misrepresentations thereof, then perhaps you should consider talking to someone else.

2) it's just a truism: if a thing that isn't a satellite mimics all of the observable phenomenon associated with satellites, then it will appear to be a satellite.  That's not really an explanation; it just avoids the question.  The question is how.
Again, you're being dishonest. You're taking what I said ("the concept of satellites mimics reality") and turning it on its head ("something mimics satellites"). It's the satellite lie that has been specifically constructed to match observable phenomena. Yes, it is a truism. It's a truism that your side of the argument constructed.

I do not accept for a second that you're stupid enough to take what I said and, in good faith, assume that it means the opposite of what I said. You're a smart guy. You just really enjoy strawmen, especially those of the CEDA "debate" variety.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 08:29:19 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2015, 10:14:23 PM »
You're incapable of upholding an honest discussion, and so you don't deserve much consideration.

You're either genuinely incapable of keeping track of what you're reading (which I do not believe to be the case), or you're lying, as you're well known to do.

you still fail to avoid mounting ridiculous strawman attacks. If it's really such a burden to respond to my posts and not your misrepresentations thereof, then perhaps you should consider talking to someone else.

you're being dishonest.

I do not accept for a second that you're stupid enough to take what I said and, in good faith, assume that it means the opposite of what I said. You just really enjoy strawmen

There is a third possibility that you have failed to consider: maybe you don't "substantiate my position, present supporting articles, and explain why the articles support my case" to the degree that you think you do.  Maybe you just aren't super clear about what you're tying to say all the time, and, perhaps without realizing it, you kind of hide your own point under a pile of snide remarks.  I know for a fact that I'm not the first person on this forum to tell you that.

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.

I omitted this section because you don't really say much.  We'll have to agree to disagree I'm sure, but I think it's kind of laughable to suggest that this smattering of sentences represents "substantiat[ing] my position, present[ing] supporting articles, and explain[ing] why the articles support my case."  Your answers are, in order: 1) can you guess what I mean?  2) Kind of.  3) Kind of.  4) "a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here."  5) I posted some Wikipedia links, so figure it out yourself.

These answers aren't exactly direct.  Pretty much none of them are apropos of my question, except for number 4, from which I guess I'm supposed to infer that you believe that the earth is accelerating through the aether and also the aether is accelerating on its own at varying magnitudes and directions.  I dunno how I could infer that from your remark, but ok.

Frankly, I read this sentence as, "if the velocity of the medium changes (ie, if the earth accelerates through the stationary medium), then there will be a Doppler effect, and that's what's happening."  And, again, you could have clarified this misunderstanding for me in a single post of about two sentences without the complete derailment of the discussion to make everyone read about how much you dislike me.

If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable.
[...]
The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.
[...]
You're taking what I said ("the concept of satellites mimics reality") and turning it on its head ("something mimics satellites"). It's the satellite lie that has been specifically constructed to match observable phenomena.

I do see where I lost you now.  I took you to be talking about the towers you believe fake the satellite signals.  As in, "if you make up a fake satellite and design it to match expected observable data, then it will appear to be a satellite."

Your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear.  Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 10:17:42 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #52 on: October 01, 2015, 11:54:48 PM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2015, 12:22:21 AM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?

If it makes the difference, this question was totally sincere:

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?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2015, 01:14:39 AM »
Gary, I hope you won't be any more outraged that you already are if I tell you that your pathetic attempts at making yourself look sincere aren't achieving their purpose. If you come back with an honest argument, I'll take you up on that, but until then you'll have to satisfy yourself with my advice of "talk to somebody else".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2015, 03:10:22 AM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes.  What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2015, 03:32:04 AM »
Gary, I hope you won't be any more outraged that you already are if I tell you that your pathetic attempts at making yourself look sincere aren't achieving their purpose. If you come back with an honest argument, I'll take you up on that, but until then you'll have to satisfy yourself with my advice of "talk to somebody else".

Who said anything about outrage?  I've been polite and reasonable throughout this whole conversation.  As I've mentioned every other time you do this: all you have to do, at any time, in any conversation with me, is say, "Hey, that's not my position.  My position is this and this and this."  Without fail, my reaction will be something like, "My mistake; with this corrected understanding, here's what I now think."

As I often do, I've tried multiple times in this thread to concede outright that you are correct that I have misstated your position and move forward from there; you are only incorrect about the cause of the misstatement.  Nevertheless, you continue to fixate counterproductively on the latter over the former.

So, your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear.  Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 03:42:06 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2015, 03:39:54 AM »
I don't think you understood my most recent message. Or, well, I doubt you sincerely didn't understand it, but you sure are acting like it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2015, 04:00:26 AM »
I don't think you understood my most recent message. Or, well, I doubt you sincerely didn't understand it, but you sure are acting like it.

For like the quattuordecillionth time (thanks, Wikipedia), I concede I misstated your position originally and am trying to move forward based on my corrected understanding.  Your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear.  Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« Reply #59 on: October 02, 2015, 04:11:07 AM »
No. I phrased it in a couple of distinct ways already, and it's a mundane enough statement that it shouldn't even require that. You're not confused at all, you're just hoping to get me to misspeak so you can jump on that, and then get offended when I call you out.

This vicious circle isn't worth our time, Gary.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume