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 ... 104  Next >
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Why does my flat earth friend push so hard?
« on: June 23, 2017, 05:46:09 PM »
Quote
See, this is problematic for me, since the burden of proof is on the FE supporters, who make the claim which refutes accepted science.

Flat Earth Theory is rooted in empiricism. FE supporters are generally skeptics and empiricists. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the claimant is not the side claiming that water is wet. The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims of things beyond experience.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

Quote
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 23, 2017, 05:29:09 PM »
So yes, they could write an "archive" feature in but from the looks of it, said feature is not currently in the app.

How did you get access to look at it?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Might need to amend the TFES homepage.....
« on: June 23, 2017, 03:33:33 PM »
Shaq retracted his opinion only after he was mocked by the media around the world. Why should anyone believe that retraction?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photo that shows curvature of the earth
« on: June 23, 2017, 02:01:53 PM »
There are *two* flat earth web forums, and I posted in both.

On the other one, someone has posted this great video which shows the effect much better than my photo...

Video that shows curvature of the earth

Flat Earth - Zooming on Lighthouses and a ship - 6ft vs 100ft Elevation. Wolfie6020

This was addressed in the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Quote
PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be. This fact is considered of such great importance, and so much is made of it as an argument for rotundity by the Newtonian philosophers, that it demands in this place special consideration. It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second

p. 214

case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

INSTANCES.--A man with light trowsers and black boots walking along a level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had been removed and the trowsers brought in contact with the ground. On one occasion the author and several friends witnessed a kind of review or special drill of infantry in the open space behind the Horse Guards, at Whitehall. It was in the month of July, and the soldiers had on their summer clothing, all their "nether garments" were white, and when near to them the black well-polished boots were visible to the depth of three or four inches, standing distinctly between the white cloth of the trowsers, and the brown or yellowish gravel and sand of the parade ground. On moving a few hundred feet away, along one of the walks in St. James's Park, the three or four inches depth of black boots subtended an angle at the eye so acute that they were no longer visible, and the almost snow white trowsers of a line of men seemed to be in actual contact with the ground. Every man when turned away or whose back was towards the spectators, seemed to be footless. The effect was remarkable, and formed a very striking illustration of the true law of perspective. After observing the manœuvres for a short time. a party of soldiers were "told off" to relieve guard at St. James's and Buckingham Palaces, and on following then, down the avenue of the park we again noticed the perspective phenomenon of a line of soldiers marching apparently without feet.

p. 215

A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs, which at a distance, of less than half-a-mile will be invisible, and the body or trunk of the animal will appear to glide upon the earth.

Horses and cattle moving away from a given point upon horizontal ground, will seem to lose their hoofs, and to be walking on the bony extremities or stumps of the limbs.

Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the rim of the wheels which touches the earth. The axles also will seem to get lower, and at the distance of one or two miles, according to the diameter of the wheels, the body of the carriage will appear to drag along in contact with the ground.

A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches above the feet, will, on walking forward, appear to sink towards the earth, the space between which and the bottom of the frock will appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile or less the limbs which were first seen for ten or twelve inches will be invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground. The whole body of the girl will, of course, gradually diminish as she recedes, but the depth of the limbs, or the lower part, will disappear before the shoulders and head--as illustrated in diagram 78.

These instances which are but a few selected from a great number which have been collected, will be sufficient to prove beyond the power of doubt, or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane or horizontal surface the lowest parts of bodies receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

p. 216

This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye. It would be the same in the case of the ship's hull were all the conditions the same. If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight. On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the "Bedford Canal," in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just "hull down," a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface. If not so it follows that the telescope either carries the line of sight through the mass of water, or over its surface and down the other side. This would indeed be "looking round a corner," a power which, nor that of penetrating a dense and extensive medium like water, has never yet been claimed for optical instruments of any kind.

Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or

p. 217

datum line, is changed. When the surface is calm the/ hull of a vessel can be seen for a much greater distance than when it is rough and stormy. This can easily be verified by observations upon fixed objects at known distances, such as light-ships, light-houses, sea walls, head-lands, or the light-coloured masonry of batteries, such as are built on the coast in many parts of the world.

In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who bad attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have

p. 218

been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

"OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."

p. 219

At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But how modified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.

p. 220

motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationary parallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.


Fig. 85.

Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interference from any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes

p. 221

less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.

Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Photo that shows curvature of the earth
« on: June 21, 2017, 10:17:57 PM »
What is the elevation of the camera?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of this supposed Ice Wall
« on: June 21, 2017, 10:07:19 PM »
Wouldn't it be interesting to know, who took that photo and where, and what does that person think of the shape of the earth?

He probably didn't think much about it because the Round Earth Theory also maintains that the Antarctic coast is defined by massive ice walls. The main difference is that in the Flat Earth monopole model the length of the Antarctic coastline is longer than in other models.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earthery is plane-ly false
« on: June 21, 2017, 10:00:15 PM »
Why can't the satellites rotate around the same barycenter the run and moon orbit around under the Flat Earth model?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Request Spanish Journalist
« on: June 21, 2017, 03:54:36 PM »
I would be happy to participate in an interview. However, as a condition, I would like to have the questions and answers published right here on our forum and website, as well. You may translate and distribute the interview as you see fit. Please submit your questions and I will respond back and answer them here in this thread.

10
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 20, 2017, 04:35:04 PM »
"AlienHunter" clearly did not understand the link. A proof like 10 + 10 = 20 is not valid in all situations. It is highly dependant on underlying assumptions of the model involved. It is not a universal proof that 20 is twice as much as 10.

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Quote
The change in heat between 0oC and 10oC is the same as between 10oC and 20oC. But watch out! 20oC is not twice as hot as 10oC! Why? Interval scales have arbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero).

11
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 18, 2017, 03:16:49 PM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

12
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 17, 2017, 10:45:54 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.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earthlings, explain this please.
« on: June 17, 2017, 10:03:34 PM »
Now some models say that moon half dark and half lit is because of the reflection of the sun, but I'm telling you here that if this is true, then the half lit and half dark should always be level because the moon and sun in your model is at the same height, so half moon or even less than half moon being lit, should always be straight from our viewing, until you tell me that the sun changes it's elevation which cause the reflection to be angular sometimes, which is insane in a flat earth model.

Why is it insane for the moon or the sun to change elevation?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Journey to the end
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:40:46 PM »
Who told you that there was an edge?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is behind Antarctica?
« on: June 13, 2017, 09:48:02 PM »
Unknown

Hard to imagine that in the age of long-range jets that no one has found out.

How many jets have flown blindly into the Southern icy tundras?
...and how many have safely landed at the south pole when delivering supplies to the many hundreds of people who live there all year round.  You can "Skype" chat with some of them.

Navigating to a certain coordinate definitely does not sound like flying blindly into the Southern Tundras to me.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« on: June 13, 2017, 04:31:24 PM »
As we are empericists, the only acceptable empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.

I'm sorry - but that's simply not true.   You propose "mechanisms" for all sorts of observations - your Wiki is full of them.

For example - you observe that the sun sets - and you go one step further and say that the reason is "perspective" - so right there, you used your observation of the setting sun to come up with a "special" kind of perspective as a mechanism.

The concept of perspective is an empirical concept which anyone can see. The mechanism for the "gravity" of the cosmos, such as hypothetical graviton puller particles, are not a empirical concepts. It is neither seen or experienced, and so may as well be fictitious altogether.

Quote
I asked why (if this is perspective) the sun doesn't get much smaller at the horizon because it's further away...and you tell me that the light of the sun is too bright and the laws of perspective don't apply...so again, you came up with a new mechanism (perspective works differently for bright light) to explain your observation.

It's not a new mechanism. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reported the effect of enlarging light in 1850. We must assume that the effect has always been with us. It is a magnification effect we can see with bright lights in the distance. Very empirical.

Quote
If you truly did what you just claimed - then you'd have to say "I observe that the sun sets - but I'm an empiricist - so I'm not in the business of explaining why it does that."...just as you observe the motions of the heavenly bodies but claim not to be in the business of explaining why they move as they do.

Explanations are fine if there is evidence behind those explanations; not pure speculation, as is the norm in Round Earth sciences.

Quote
This is what gets FET into trouble - by failing to meticulously search for underlying mechanisms for everything you see, you get into contradictions - but you don't go the extra mile to fix that.

We have discussed the mechanisms we describe very thoroughly. A mechanism is not adopted without empirical evidence behind it. There is empirical evidence for an upwardly accelerating earth, for example, which is why that mechanism is used as an explanation for what keeps us pinned to the surface.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 13, 2017, 12:27:25 PM »
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?

 For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?

(is this question ridiculous?)

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« on: June 13, 2017, 12:21:20 PM »
The question is WHY?    Why do they do these really complex moves - which just happen to precisely mimic what they'd do if they were going around the sun in a simple ellipse?

The planets in FE are also going around the sun in a simple ellipse. So...

Quote
If we're not accepting religious explanations (as indeed we should not) - then WHY do they make these crazy complicated motions?

Crazy complicated motions such as passing between the observer and the sun?

Quote
This is the hardest part of FET astronomy - not whether things like transits, eclipses, seasons, etc could happen - it's a question of what simple natural laws predict these motions?

As we are empericists, the only acceptable and empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is behind Antarctica?
« on: June 13, 2017, 05:13:10 AM »
Unknown

Hard to imagine that in the age of long-range jets that no one has found out.

How many jets have flown blindly into the Southern icy tundras?

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2017, 02:58:39 AM »
Quote
Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.
Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104  Next >