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 ... 242  Next >
1
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.

What does this argument have to do with the fact that there is no illumination on the backside of this rock and others?



Quote
Tom's post is a perfect example of what I said above, people who have no expertise pontificating about how things "should" look and thinking they know better than people who have spent years developing software which models the way light behaves and demonstrably renders accurate images.

What is your expertise to tell us what the rock above should look like on a very reflective and luminous moon?

You are simultaneously arguing that deep dark shadows on rocks and craters are fine while claiming that the surface of the moon is incredibly reflective and luminous.

2
We don't talk about the incident.

3
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

You may want to re-watch the video b/c their work is not “just based on the reflectivity value that NASA claimed.” There’s a lot more to it, as Mysfit alluded to. But here’s a hint, the surface is a minor aspect.

The video claims that the lunar surface is very bright and reflective, and is providing most of the light. Around the 4 minute mark they claim that they couldn't get it "quite right" and bring in the reflectivity off of Neil Armstrong's space suit.

They show a render at 4:07 on what the reflectivity looks like with the lunar surface only:



Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.

4
Here is the NVIDIA render next to the Apollo photo, showing that the moon is very luminous and reflective, and can light up the back side of the lander:



However, if the lunar surface is so luminous and reflective, then why aren't the shadowed areas of the rocks and craters on the moon's surface also illuminated?

Rock from nasa.gov:



Crater:


5
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.

6
Again, my comment to you is to read the article to the very end. Poor does not describe the cause of the bending of starlight around the sun to be due to Newtonian Gravity or Relativity at all.

7
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.
OK, so you'd prefer to go with what Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote:
Quote from: Professor Charles Lane Poor
And my previous post contained:
for ordinary calculations within the solar system, Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
See this quote from Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton
Quote
One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system.
Professor Charles Lane Poor is simply claiming that since Newton Law of Universal Gravitation is so much simpler, and it is, that it should be accepted over Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
But:
  • I believe that Professor Charles Lane Poor wrote that in 1924 - and there's been "a lot of water under the bridge since then".
  • Even Newtonian Gravitation predicts that massive objects will bend light, though only by half as much as Einstein's GR.
So can we say that if you don't agree with Einstein's GR that you do accept the Newtonian Law of Universal Gravitation, as Professor Charles Lane Poor does.
Otherwise, it seems quite inconsistent for you to appeal to an authority that you, yourself regard as in error.

Read the article again. The bending of starlight around the sun is explained with neither Newtonian Gravity or Relativity.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page
« on: October 16, 2018, 03:33:01 AM »
That is, the Earth does not rotate: only the Coriolis effect of the ether drift was registered by the fringe shifts of the interferometer.

This paper, though quite old, is for a calculator of sorts for ballistic missile guidance used by the US Army.

What evidence is there that it is used by the US Army?

9
Flat Earth Media / Re: NAVY Missile Instructor Describes Flat Earth
« on: October 15, 2018, 08:14:49 PM »
So he really is in the military? Cool.

10
Would you have preferred if, for example, he showed instead of the first image, something more reflective of what's in the FAQ, like the second image?

We would have preferred it if he had actually read anything about something he was attempting to criticize.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page
« on: October 15, 2018, 06:13:01 PM »
I'm not sure that's the best image to relay how the gyrocompass works from a flat perspective.
It shows the rotation of a spherical earth and how gravity affects the compass. That's 3 wrongs, which I assume still don't make a right.

I don't see a flat earth in that image. What makes you think that the image was being presented from a flat perspective and was not merely informational on how the gyrocompass supposedly works?

12
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
Tom, are you forgetting about gravitational lensing?  That was literally one of the first experimental tests of GR and bendy space-time.

Professor Charles Lane Poor says that there are other causes for the "lensing" that is seen that have nothing to do with curving space or "gravity". Also see his other papers on the matter.

In fact, this phenomenon was known about long before Einstein came up with GR.

Quote from: rabinoz
Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".

Quantum Mechanics proposes an entirely different mechanism for gravity where space-time does not bend or curve. The last time I checked there was no Grand Unification Theory or verification of the curving space theory. Please provide a link to the Nobel prize winner so that we may congratulate him or her. Thank you.

13
Flat Earth Media / Re: NAVY Missile Instructor Describes Flat Earth
« on: October 15, 2018, 04:26:08 PM »
"The host of this radio show sounds mental" is an argument that has nothing to do with his guest, nor does any book that the host has been involved with. Beyond being incredibly rude, the guest is obviously an entirely different person.


14
Flat Earth Media / NAVY Missile Instructor Describes Flat Earth
« on: October 14, 2018, 07:46:06 PM »
A NAVY Missile Instructor describes that weapons systems observe bodies beyond the horizon. He describes that in such weapons systems no adjustments for curvature are taken into account, and that no adjustments for the Coriolis Effect is made. A planar model is assumed. Further, he describes that popular theory maps used on the open ocean are completely wrong.


15
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki - Zeteticism
« on: October 14, 2018, 08:39:49 AM »
Rowbotham's chapter on the matter is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

16
It's funny that he would use that "we have pictures argument" because in Neil deGrasse Tyson's latest book, "Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military," there are numerous statements about how access to space and space exploration was politicized and militarized from the very start, and that Astronomy in large part depends on funding from the government and military.

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Accessory-to-War/

Quote from: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Space has been politicized and militarized from the opening moments of the race to reach it.

Tyson well admits that the military is deeply involved in space, and that the government and its allies attempt to control it in all aspects.

NASA was specifically created, not for the benefit of humanity, but to show the world that America could get ICBMs and other weapons into space and annihilate its enemies at the push of a button.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« on: October 13, 2018, 07:18:45 PM »
P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.

Perhaps it can be worded better. The meaning behind "all possibilities tested" is that you have to try and disprove yourself in the context of testing your hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, you need to conduct tests to prove yourself wrong.

The Scientific Method has you coming up with a hypothesis, performing an experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis, and then declaring victory with any positive result. You are not instructed to prove yourself wrong.

Quote
P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.

The example I am thinking of is the process of creating new drugs. Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Quote
P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)

Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.

I would say that the question of "I want to see how high bouncy balls bounce" is actually a great example of Zetetic inquiry, because you are wanting to assess the possibilities.

The Scientific Method version of that (make a hypothesis and then test it) would have you make a formal hypothesis that the ball will behave in a certain manner and then declare victory if you experiment and observe it. But, you and I know both know that the bouncy ball may in fact exceed such a hypothesis and have all sorts of behaviors, and that the confirmation of a specific hypothesis may not be the entire truth, and would lead one astray if we then started using that knowledge to build other theories of bouncy-ball dynamics.

Hence we see that if the basic and fundamental truths are incorrect, then the entire house cards that rests on top of it is also incorrect.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Revolution
« on: October 13, 2018, 05:01:31 AM »
Stack, everything I said is true.

Per stratellites, I was thinking more about Google's Project Loon and the government's stratellite and pseudolite projects.

https://loon.co/

"Loon is a network of stratospheric balloons designed to bring Internet connectivity to rural and remote communities worldwide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_(company)

From the timeline we see that Loon has already signed contracts with several countries. While they do not release numbers, we can expect it to be in the millions.

Related Article: Google thinks its internet balloons could be a $10 billion business

WorldView is another company with existing contracts:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-the-new-lighter-than-air-race-for-space

Quote
World View, based in Tucson, plan to use their balloons, known as Stratollites, not just as communications relays, but also as surveillance platforms. BBC Future visited their facility back in 2016.

“Applications are endless, from persistently monitoring forests to notifying first responders when a fire sparks, to watching remote parts of the ocean for maritime piracy, to real-time monitoring of crop health," says World View’s Angelica DeLuccia Morrissey.

Three years ago World View looked like a dream, but after a series of increasingly ambitious test flights, the company has government contracts and commercial customers.

Per the government's stratellite and pseudolite research, see this article:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175-91462016000300249

The government has likely already spent over a hundred million dollars on these technologies, and have successfully deployed them for special operations.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page
« on: October 13, 2018, 03:17:16 AM »
Proof that experimentation, testing, design and development, sales and marketing, consumer and deployment of devise that compensate for the "Coriolis Effect" do indeed exist indicate that the statements in FE wiki need to be corrected.

Excerpt
Safran is an international high-technology group, operating in the aircraft propulsion and equipment, space and defense markets. Safran has a global presence, with more than 58,000 employees and sales of 16.5 billion euros in 2017. Safran is listed on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, and is part of the CAC 40 and Euro Stoxx 50 indices.

Safran Optics 1 is a leader in the design, development, and manufacturing of integrated electro-optical systems and subsystems for defense and law enforcement agencies.  Leveraging core competencies in electro-optics, day and night imaging, laser range finding, and digital magnetic compass technology, Optics 1 is able to provide exceptional electro-optical systems for warfighter and law enforcement missions.  Optics 1 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Safran Electronics & Defense.

For more information: www.safran-group.com and www.safran-electronics-defense.com / Follow @Safran and @SafranElecDef on Twitter

"Thanks to its robust algorithms and high performance HRG CrystalTM gyroscopes, PAVAM finds true north very quickly by sensing the earth's rotation(SENSING THE EARTHS ROTATION) and determining the azimuth to north. Without any calibration phase, PAVAM provides accurate latitude information. This allows the Soldier to perform precision targeting missions with greater reliability, faster, and with lighter equipment than ever before."

Source
https://www.safran-electronics-defense.com/media/more-100-precision-azimuth-vertical-angle-module-pavam-delivered-safran-optics-1-2017-20180611

This is more about the gyrocompass, which is a separate subject than the Coriolis Effect.

It operates on slight weight changes.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PiEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA91&ots=s0slhdUupv&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false



It is known that there is a southerly deflection phenomenon. We were talking about the odd southern deflections in the falling body experients.

A researcher in Russia performed experiments which saw odd southerly deflections which defied classical mechanics:

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/EREPORTS/levich_substan_inter/levich_substan_inter.htm

Quote
One of Kozyrev’s early papers (Kozyrev 1958) describes in detail the experiments on anomalous southern deflection of bodies falling in the Earth’s gravitational field, from Hooke’s experiments of 1680 to that of Kozyrev, arranged at Pulkovo.

The northern deflection effect “is observed by vibration of any nonrotating body suspended to a filament. The conditions necessary for obtaining the pendulum displacement effect due to the Earth’s rotation, are quite similar to the above conditions of gyro displacement... These experiments were carried out at Pulkovo with pendulums of different lengths, from 1.5 to 11 meters. The fractional displacement turned out to be independent of pendulum length... Thus the displacement is caused by a certain force, independent of pendulum construction. This force significantly varies with geographic latitude... No doubt, the forces measured by pendulum displacements are horizontal projections of asymmetric forces active at the surface of the Earth. As for vertical projections of the same asymmetric forces, one can try to obtain them by vibrating the system with a vertical degree of freedom” (Kozyrev 1963, p.107). “The simplest system of this kind is a beam balance. Assume that a weight is suspended at one end of the beam by a rigid suspension able to transfer beam vibrations to the weight. The other, balancing weight was suspended to rubber shock-absorbers which damp all the oscillations. Then, as the balance vibrates, it is possible to observe oscillating weight reduction...

He believed that the earth was round, and speculated on some kind of force inherent in nature that deflected southwards, but it is difficult to understand his exact theory. He did perform several experiments which showed southern deflection, whatever his theory about it might be.

20
Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.

That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.

The real crime is the position of appealing to authority and accepting everything you are told.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 242  Next >