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 ... 122  Next >
1
Tom - how do the sun and moon cross paths if they orbit one another?

Where in our materials have you seen it stated that they orbit each other?

2
I am assuming that North America looks the way topographers/cartographers have depicted it for centuries now. How do you believe North America is shaped?

We presently lack the funding to look into the matter to any acceptable level. However, the point stands.

Quote
How do you believe North America is shaped?

The Round Earth coordinate system would look different on a Flat Earth, since lat/long assumes a Round Earth, and therefore the landmasses would look different. This is deserving of a research project. Unfortunately there is a lack of funding to look into this matter at present.

Quote
What's more, why can NASA predict, down to the minute and mile, when and where the path of totality will be?

The sun and moon have traveled over the surface of the earth for eons. It is possible to create a model which predict where the coordinates of the Sun's path will be tomorrow based on previous occurrences. It has traveled that path before and is therefore predicable.

3
You are assuming that North America on a Flat Earth would shaped as it is in Round Earth Theory.

4
I mean, why do they match up exactly for FE? Isn't it simply coincidence they're the same size? Actually, what is the origin of Earth and everything in the FE hypothesis? I don't recall seeing it before. Do you rely on a powerful being a la religion? Or something else?

Under FE the explanation is that the sun and moon appear to be the same size because they are the same size. The Sun and Moon being the same size may be explained as the result of a physical process which limits the maximum size of a body, similar to how wind can limit the maximum size of a sand dune. Finding two large sand dunes at the same maximum size is no coincidence.

Consider rain drops. When drops are formed, they can only become so small else they are whisked and flitted away into the air and evaporate. They can also only get so large before they break up into multiple drops by air friction. Therefore we have rain drops which can only exist in a narrow size range. The largest of the raindrops are all the same size and the smallest of the rain drops are all the same size.

Examples of forces in nature which compel bodies to be of similar sizes are seen all around us, and while it is unknown exactly what forces the Sun and Moon are under, it is no coincidence that maximums exist in nature.

Under this Round Earth Theory scenerio, however, there is no other way to describe this phenomenon of two radically different bodies appearing as the same size other than it being a coincidence of cosmic proportions.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The phases of the moon
« on: Today at 01:05:40 AM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Quote
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow created from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.

Also check out the Moon's Monthly Analemma. We can see it moving up and downwards over the course of its lunar cycle in relation the the ecliptic:

http://www.skymarvels.com/news2010-10.htm



According the above quoted Wiki article Flat Earth Theory predicts that a Solar Eclipse would occur when the Moon is below the plane of the sun and between the Sun and observer. Today is Solar Eclipse day and according to the Moon Phase calendar, today is a New Moon, meaning that it is at its lowest. Prediction has met reality.

6
Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the Sun is 4 million times larger than the Moon, the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance debate based on poll results
« on: August 21, 2017, 06:10:14 PM »
We've demonstrated these in the other thread

No, you have not. If you believe that you have, then kindly copy and paste.

Quote
and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.

1) We would accept a method which does not involve using a Round Earth coordinate system or Round Earth assumptions.

2) I am sure there are distances which have been measured independent to Round Earth assumptions (ie., measured with a wheeled device). I do not have a list, however.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?
« on: August 21, 2017, 05:34:56 PM »
Why are you attempting to go off topic? Why can't you just address the OP's inquiry?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance debate based on poll results
« on: August 21, 2017, 05:31:36 PM »
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:

- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system

If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?
« on: August 21, 2017, 01:29:02 AM »
Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?

11
There is nothing in the Wiki about solar eclipse, as far as I can find.

Did you try searching?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« on: August 19, 2017, 05:12:26 AM »
Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).

How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« on: August 19, 2017, 02:29:59 AM »
Side view drawings of Ancient Greek perspective theories do not translate into the real world. See this video:


14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Big Is The NASA conspiracy?
« on: August 19, 2017, 01:45:44 AM »
OK so what do you think about my cousin then? it sounds like he is just being lied too.

IF you hold with FE beliefs then you'd have to say that right now, he's being lied to - but once he gets more deeply into the subject, there is no possibility that he could not learn "The Truth" - so he'd either have to sign up to the conspiracy - or "come out" as a Flat Earther and give up astronomy, which he'd then know were a pack of lies.

There are a LOT of astronomers in the world...I don't think any of them gave it up when they discovered that they'd be lied to for all this time...so for FE to be tenable, you'd have to believe that 100% of astronomers are intellectually dishonest people who signed up to the conspiracy...and that having done that, not a single one changed their minds and revealed the truth to the world.

That's not just true of the present day - the conspiracy must go back many hundreds of years.

Astronomers aren't liars. They are merely mistaken.

How about those Navy lookouts who can estimate the distance to the horizon ?
Are they merely mistaken ?

Untrustworthy murderers for hire.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« on: August 19, 2017, 01:29:36 AM »
But light doesn't care about perspective does it? Light travels in straight lines. It doesn't matter if the sun appears to be touching the horizon, being 3 thousand miles above the Earth it will always have a larger than 0 angle above the horizon for the light to be coming from. You *have* to have a mechanism that changes this property of light then. Or the Earth isn't flat. Those are your options at this point Tom, no matter how you want to dance around them.

Who says that light doesn't care about perspective? How can the lands appear to ascend to eye level if they were not really ascending to your eye level? Can you see a bunny rabbit beyond your vanishing point?

You seem to think perspective is an illusion rather than physical manifestation of angles at distance.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 19, 2017, 01:15:55 AM »
You may as well point us to Aristotle's 2000 year old book which contains his perspective theory illustrations; which is right next to his book which tells us that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« on: August 19, 2017, 12:06:51 AM »
But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.

In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?

The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.

The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???

An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.

Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?

18
Flat Earth General / Re: A misunderstanding
« on: August 19, 2017, 12:02:24 AM »
Ignoring my point that the improvements were made by them, ok.

Did I say they weren't involved with NASA at all? No, I simply said scientists around the world collaborate on the things they do. All of the groups that do this on Earth talk to all the other groups that do this. You're saying NASA has their hand up the Paris groups ass, just because they talk and collaborate. I'm telling you that just makes you sound even more paranoid than you already did, as though NASA is some giant puppet master over all. Which especially doesn't make sense as collaboration would have been far more limited in the early years of this facility, and I've seen nothing to suggest they ever called foul on NASA with the moon reflectors.

If NASA is "collaborating" with someone, that suggests that money is exchanging hands. The government is not in the business of requesting research or data from scientists and then crossing their fingers that they will come through.

19
Yes, North and South sometimes point off into nothingness, and so does East and West. If you follow the reading of East or West you will eventually make a circle around the earth. If you follow the Northern or Southern magnetic field lines you will eventually reach the North or South Pole. The turn will be very gradual.

Your assertion that we can somehow know that North and South are not curved by opening an iPhone compass app and relying on common knowledge that North and South does not curve is fallacious.

Under the Round Earth model East does not always point East (except at the equator), and Eastwards navigation is possible. Consider where "East" would point 20 feet from the point of Magnetic North in RET. Why must we believe that North always points North?

20
Flat Earth General / Re: A misunderstanding
« on: August 18, 2017, 11:41:08 PM »
They work with NASA and every other group like them around the globe. You know, like scientists do. Is this now suddenly a black mark against anything even remotely associated with NASA then? God damn.

That's only been in use since 2010, as listed in that paper. The France site has been around since 1988 and Apollo 15 put it up there in '71. Also for the record, that document is stating the Paris observatory put forth the improvements to the software, not NASA. "We report the activities of the Lunar analysis center POLAC during the last two years"

That report is hosted on NASA's webserver under a directory called "Session 9". Why would NASA host it if they had no involvement at all?

These guys are clearly associated with NASA if their reports are appearing on NASA's web servers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 122  Next >