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 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 490  Next >
2061
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 03:14:03 AM »

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

That's only partially true, like areas where mountain peaks are composed of uplifted lithified former seafloor sediments. In these areas, the less dense rocks press down on the denser crustal rocks beneath, making the observed pull due to gravity less.

Other modern and former mountain chains with higher proportions of denser rock display high gravity anomalies. Look at the Andes or the ancient Appalachians, which have a higher gravity than the surrounding intracratonic basins infilled with Paleozoic and younger sea floor sediments.

The highest gravity anomalies tend to occur in areas where dense crust occurs near surface: mid-ocean ridges and along the margins of ocean trenches.

The isostacy wiki page is drastically deficient in quality references and empirical data.

The Wiki actually does provide sources. Whereas you provide no sources at all for your statements.

2062
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 03:07:53 AM »
The string discussion is addressed in the link, which you do not even attempt a response to.

Your "it's an illusion" explanation does not explain anything at all and is an example of your failure to explain this.

2063
Your explanation failed to explain why lights of various distances in the far field all stay the same size, and was summarily dismissed.

In the far field the lights are the same size:


2064
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 02:42:40 AM »
Quote from: scomato
The wiki on Gravimetry claims that Gravimeters are picking up seismic noise, which is impossible considering most Gravimetry these days is conducted using airplane or satellite mounted devices. How does seismology work, when the detector is not even attached to the ground?

Seismic waves are transmitted into the air as well - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Airborne_Seismic_Waves

Quote from: scomato
It isn't volcanic, yet, the high density of mass caused by those mountains still gives the expected gravimetry readings despite being seismically inactive!

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

2065
Using one of the FE claims about Sun & Moon altitude and size, here's a simulation showing how a 3000 mile high

That's not a simulation of what FE claims to occur.

You know that the explanation is here and do not even attempt to address it: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

2066
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 02:04:43 AM »
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Although RE claims to have answers for this, those answers really don't work.

2067
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 10:51:11 PM »
What data did you base your statement on and where can we find it?

You want evidence to support the distance across australia? I got my figure(s) from google maps, but the point is that the data you get from google, or indeed any other app, is backed up by thousands of people making journeys every day. At the extreme end of the scale, you have people like this:

https://www.tailoredmedia.com.au/blog/the-4-lessons-i-learned-cycling-across-australia-with-my-son/

If the distance wasn't what it was said to be, then their planning simply wouldn't work, would it? And nor would countless others. And every long journey in Australia done by car would trigger an odd mismatch between the planned distance and the reality recorded on the vehicle's odo. In road haulage particularly, those differences would get noticed very quickly.

Are you suggesting that it is not, in fact, about 4800 km across Australia as I described?

So first you claim to have odometer data, and now you don't have that data after all?

Now you backtrack on that and instead show a link which says that two young people cycled 4800 km in 30 days. Here is another link which says that an elderly grandfather cycled 11,616 km in 30 days.

Doesn't look like you've provided much in the way of solid evidence on this to me.

Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps. Which one are you trying to debunk?

2068
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 18, 2021, 10:36:18 PM »
Russia is now defending my rights as an American more than the "American President".

https://ussanews.com/News1/2021/02/17/russia-blasts-biden-regime-for-persecution-of-trump-supporters-political-dissidents:

    The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a statement lambasting the United States government under Joe Biden for the “ongoing persecution campaign” taking place “against anybody at all who does not agree with the results of the latest presidential election.”

    In the statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova delivered a scathing assessment of the human rights situation in the United States under President Joe Biden. Zakharova described the ongoing crackdown against Trump loyalists in the United States. She also questioned the “objectivity of the law enforcement agencies” involved in this campaign, noting that they were acting under orders and “in line with the narrative of the current administration who declared the events of January 6, 2021 a riot and everybody who was near the US Congress on that day all but plunderers.”

2069
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 08:57:23 PM »
There are anomalous winds in the southern hemisphere - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

If you are going to try to use travel times to show evidence for a particular model, you need to do better than provide information from an area known to be anomalous.

I used road journeys in my example Tom. The wind doesn't affect them. And I didn't say 'times', I said 'distances'. As in: 'what people measure using their car odometers', for example.

What data did you base your statement on and where can we find it?

2070
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 06:55:17 PM »
There are anomalous winds in the southern hemisphere - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

If you are going to try to use travel times to show evidence for a particular model, you need to do better than provide information from an area known to be anomalous.

2072
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Religious Views of the Enlightenment
« on: February 17, 2021, 08:01:43 PM »
Newton brings in "divine intervention" to explain the failings of his science.

From The Kam Story by Professor H Scott Dumas:

    “ At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.(11) This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the n body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the n body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.

    (11) Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of Opticks, which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q(New) in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of Principia, and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see (Klo73), Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55). ”

The University of California San Diego credits Newton with providing the laws of physics for the Solar System:

    “ Then came Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who brought the laws of physics to the solar system. Isaac Newton explained why the planets move the way they do, by applying his laws of motion, and the force of gravitation between any two bodies, letting the force decrease with the square of the distance between the two bodies. ”

Further reference here:

P. Kelly, LL. D. in his Metrology; Or, an Exposition of Weights and Measures (1816) comments on p.10:

    “ Some philosophers have doubted the perfect equability of the earth's diurnal rotation on its axis; but from the best observations that have been made for 2000 years, in fixed observatories, it is concluded that there is no variation whatever. It is perhaps the only uniform motion of which astronomers are certain. And here it may be worthy of remark, that no natural cause has yet been assigned for the diurnal rotation of the planets. Sir Issac Newton observes, in one of his letters to Dr. Bently, (reviewed in Dr. Johnson's Works, Vol. II. p.332, Murphy's edition) that "the diurnal rotations of the planets cannot be derived from gravity, but must require a divine arm to impress them."

    The above question respecting the natural cause of plentary rotation was submitted to the principle Astronomers of France in the summer of 1814, at a Metting of the Board of Longitude. It was introduced by a visitor from England, who wished to learn if any new light had been thrown on the subject, by the great advances made in analytical science and physical astronomy, by some of the members present. They all agreed that no satisfactory solution had yet been given of the phenomenon; and they listened with much attention to the opinion quoted from Sir Issac Newton's Letters, which they had not previously known, and on which the Count Laplace modestly observed -- "Si Netwon n'a pas pu l'exfliquer ce n'est pas a nous d'y pretendre." (Translated: If Netwon could not explain it, it is not up to us to claim it.) ”

2073
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: February 17, 2021, 04:48:21 AM »

2074
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 09:49:54 PM »
Quote
For anyone confused about the difference between cameras and lenses and telescopes here is some quick information about equipment I own.

It appears that you are the one who is confused between a telescope and a camera. From your previous quotes you were arguing about the view through telescopes on EQ mounts and are now abandoning that argument and insist that the EQ mount discussion is not about telescopes anymore, and that you only mean the view through a camera only.

it's possible for the media to have been edited it's invalid.

And that's it, right there, in a nutshell, isn't it? Despite thousands of people the whole world over participating in this hobby, despite an overwhelming preponderance of high quality evidence, it might be faked. Kind of true, really - it could be. Everything can be faked. That stunning video that JSS posted (thanks JSS - never seen that before. Amazing) Every video, every instruction manual, every website. Every design for a telescope mount, every patent, every moon landing video, every how-to-adjust-the-drift-nut-on-your-directional-gyro, it all could be faked. My plea - and this is directed at other people reading this, because you're either being deliberately disingenuous  or are truly beyond hope - is to ask yourself, which is more likely? The mass fakery, or the scientific consensus?

Previously in this thread multiple images were rejected because it was possible that they were modified. Now you want to bring in a piece of media and insist that it is not modified, when it is possible that it was modified by the authors to get an ideal result for their purposes. This is hypocrisy, regardless of the validity of the media. If it is possible that it was modified then it must be discarded by those same standards.

2075
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 02:30:30 AM »
Quote from: stack
Change the topic to what? Everyone is talking about telescopes, cameras, lenses, EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc. All the stuff used to do astrophotography. How do you do your astrophotography? With a disposable camera from Wallgreens?

The discussion was clearly tracking with telescopes. I can see with your reply that you choose to be disingenuous to this and see no further point in discussion.

The topic was actually

You were talking about telescope tracking in those quotes about the EQ mount and have failed to maintain your position.

Quote
Here is another showing that the entire sky of stars is static, done by recording 24 hours and rotating the video to show how the stars are fixed.  If the stars are going in ovals then how come they are not moving in relation to others?  This video and all the others completely invalidates all your claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYcKaBzr87g

Incorrect. The stars are drifting in the video there. They don't stay in the same spot on the screen. It's also easily edited/rescaled to get the ideal result like the previous images. It doesn't matter that it's a video. By your previous standards, if it's possible for the media to have been edited then it's invalid.

it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time.

Tom, there are many How-To guides on YouTube for doing this, using a device such as a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Motorized Mount. It is the basis of astrophotography, a hobby that many non-scientists enjoy.

This is a great video of a guy doing this in his backyard, with top tier hardware. He is keeping Mars in frame, without trailing, for hours at a time. At 7:26 in this video, you can see a tracked preview image of Mars without any trailing, and his final photo is not smeared like a time lapse.



Go to 2:24: "The guide telescope on top is..." and "I have a small asi 120mm mini guide camera in there..."

There is a guiding device on the telescope that optically tracks the celestial bodies to move the telescope in tandem:



2076
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 02:09:04 AM »
You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitaute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

My scope can certainly track stars all night long if I have a wide angle lens.  Less if I start to zoom in.

Now suddenly his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

What in the world are you going on about? You're saying you can't track stars for more than a few minutes, yet you've been told and shown that you can track stars for hours. Do you get that yet?

What's this about "he...wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether."? Where is that coming from? Aren't we talking about telescopes with EQ mounts, tripods, stars, tracking, etc.? I have no idea what you're even saying anymore, you're so all over the place.

Follow the thread please. The argument was about tracking in telescopes:

You are confused that some users get better tracking with a telescope mount DESIGNED FOR BETTER TRACKING rather than a telescope designed to be cheap? Why is this a point of confusion for you?  If you want long term tracking, buy a mount designed for that.

Now you want to go down the rabbit hole of proving to you that telescopes can track stars for a 'long' duration.  Fine, but please specify what 'long' is so I don't waste my time, thanks.

The topic was tracking in telescopes. Now you guys want to change this topic because you understand that you are wrong.

2077
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 01:59:19 AM »
You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.

Here's a neat Dusk-to-Dawn (At least 8 hours) time-lapse keeping stars in frame without trails. That would constitute "hours at a time", right? What's all this business that you can only track stars for minutes?

https://i.imgur.com/3G2RC7S.gif

Nope. JSS has been repeatedly arguing about keeping stars in telescopes:

You are clearly able to use Google, so I'm confused how you are unable to look up the ability of equatorial mount telescopes to track stars.

But if you would like me to do it for you I ask again, and please answer this time, what do you mean by proving they can track for a 'long' time?  And why do you need to track them all night?  An hour is plenty of time to get a good star trail picture.

You seem to be suggesting that if a telescope can 'only' track for 10 hours and not 10 hours and 1 second, then it can't track the stars at all?

You keep asking me to prove telescopes can track stars, but continue to refuse to narrow down your request so I can do so.

1. How many hours do you need for proof?

2. What amount of magnification?

Now his argument isn't about telescopes anymore because he realized that he was incorrect.

After arguing about telescopes at length on this matter he concedes and admits that he is wrong and wants to avoid use of a telescope altogether.

2078
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 01:15:18 AM »
Previously you told us that we could just buy one of these telescopes and that it will keep the star "perfectly aligned." Now you're changing your tune and saying that we need to get rid of the telescope use and only use a camera mounted on an EQ mount.

I have been thinking about how to prove stars move in perfect circles, no matter where you are on the planet and I think I have a simple, direct method to do so.

The Equatorial Telescope Mount



This is a very simple device, it's just shaft with a motor that turns the telescope in a circle, making one rotation every 24 hours.

When you point the axis of this motor at the north or south pole star, you can then mount your telescope to it, aim your telescope at a star and that star will remain perfectly centered in your viewfinder as the telescope is now rotating with the stars.

The key here is this mount simply rotates your telescope in a circle. That is all it does. It is physically a single axis, it's incapable of moving in anything BUT a circle. It literally can not turn in ovals or parabolas or any other shape, it is a single rotating axis. And it will keep any star you look at perfectly aligned.

This could not be possible if the stars did not also move in perfect circles.

There are hundreds of sites explaining how EQ mounts work and how to set them up if anyone wants to look them up. The EQ mount has been made and sold to millions of people around the world, it's widely used and so simple there can be little confusion on how it operates, and if it did not work as advertised, this would be well known by now.

You apparently do not know how it operates, because we can't just buy a telescope and expect the stars in view to stay perfectly aligned with a EQ mount for very long.

Now you are conceding to this and ranting about how we need to use an EQ mount and a camera, backtracking away from the telescopes that you told us about.

2079
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 12:54:26 AM »
You have no authoritative evidence for this claim that it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time. Every time you are asked for appropriate sources you continue to merely insist that you "know" that it's right. Please refrain from spreading claims without supporting evidence from appropriate sources, kindly.


2080
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 12, 2021, 12:32:25 AM »
You still think that people saying you can only have a shutter time of 5 minutes means the star drifts out of frame that fast, this is completely wrong and in total ignorance of the basics of astrophotography. In 5 minutes it will drift a tiny amount, enough to move a few pixels on the camera sensor and cause the star to blur.

Nope.

The author in the link we are discussing shows that the star drifts out of shot within a short amount of time.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?astrophoto_mount_errors.htm

"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."



Meanwhile you continue to provide zero evidence or reference that it is possible to keep it lined up for hours, and merely repeat this statement without qualification, in contradiction to multiple references which suggest that it only stays in frame for a short amount of time.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 490  Next >