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 ... 214  Next >
1
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

2
I hear the perspective explanation, but it's not convincing. You've championed observation and empiricism, but to defend the perspective explanation you use a thought-experiment analogy.

It's fine to use rationalism as a preliminary method of inquiry. Empiricists make conclusions based on what concept has more real world evidence.

In this particular case, I don't believe that there are many good examples to easily point to -- and so a a thought experiment is the best that can be done until further evidence is collected.

Quote
In the very next paragraph, you reject the Greek logical hypotheticals, saying "empiricists...hold that the foundations of perspective should be based on real world occurrences..."  A giant Rubik's cube 10,000 feet above isn't a real world occurrence.

That thought experiment is certainly more empirical than an equation on a piece of paper -- it causes the user to think about how he or she has experienced the world to behave.

Quote
On the inclusion of EA, I think it should be noted that the EA and perspective explanations for the phenomenon are mutually exclusive.

Agreed.


Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from you into the distance it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

Give me a size of the giant Rubik's Cube and I'll work out the math and draw up a visualization of this.

I don't think it really matters how big the Rubix cube is. I used the word giant because if it is left as a regular Rubix Cube, the "winning" tactic would be to remark that a Rubix Cube can't be seen at 10,000 feet.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM »
@tom I never once called you a monster so spare me your shallow rhetoric. All I said was that if people are regularly risking rape and murder there has to be a good reason. I am no more an international economic and social development expert than you (although at least I don’t pretend to know the best course of action)

What makes you think that these people even know the risks? Children certainly don't understand the matter.

The rivers and deserts in that area are off limits, even to American citizens on the American side. The government tends to close off places that have a reputation for people dying. The responsible thing to do is to enforce that.

Quote
Maybe you could also refrain from eye-rolling identity politics too? It tends to help.

How can I help it? The hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief.


4
I'm starting a Wiki entry on why we always see the same face to the moon in Flat Earth Theory. Comments or additions are welcomed.

Why do we always see the same face of the moon?

Perspective Explanation

Proponents of Perspective Theory assert that there is evidence suggesting that overhead objects receding into the distance will rotate increasingly slower as those bodies increase in altitude.

Rubix Cube Example

Imagine that we had a giant solved Rubix Cube suspended one foot above our heads. When we look up we can see its white underside. Now imagine that the Rubix Cube slowly recedes away from us into the distance. We will quickly see one of the colored sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. The white bottom of the cube will disappear and you will only see it from the colored side.

Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above us. It is directly over us. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from us into the distance it will take much longer for us to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

The logical conclusion is that as a body increases in altitude, the slower it will turn to perspective. If we were to increase the relationship by several orders of magnitude, one may suggest that the moon is at such a great distance in the sky that it hardly changes angle at all when it moves over the observer's limited viewing area.

Ancient Greek Perspective

The Ancient Greeks believed in a Continuous Universe, where the perspective lines receded infinitely and continuously into the distance. Perspective Theory empiricists generally question this concept and hold that the foundations of perspective should be based on real world occurrences, rather than ancient hypothetical concepts of a perfect universe.


Electromagnetic Accelerator Explanation

Proponents of the Electromagnetic Accelerator assert that the light of the moon reflects a similar scene to what happens to the light of the sun. The light of the moon's face is bending upwards, and when the observer sees the moon at the horizon the face of the moon is presenting itself to the observer.

<Electromagnetic Accelerator curving light diagram, replacing the sun with the moon>

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 21, 2018, 10:43:34 PM »
I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

I would imagine that people are taking on the risk of rape and death because its better than the alternative.  I would want people to escape that.

The border is basically a mine field. If you want to help Mexico lobby to send them foreign aid or something. It is stupid to allow such reckless activity and put children in that position.

You call us monsters for "separating families," but turning your cheek to the death and depravity of what is going on is far worse. Far worse.

Why do you want it to continue? Don't you think it's possible to help suffering people in foreign countries in another way that doesn't involve sending children across a deadly desert with strangers?

Separating kids from their parents/human smuggler to be sent to the care of relatives = Bad
Children dying in the desert = Oh well, what happens, happens.

 Liberals. ::)

Do you know why most people comit crimes?  Go through hardships voluntarily? Put themselves through hell and back?

Because the alternative is worse.
Few decide to make themselves suffer because they want to suffer.

You are turning the cheek and giving a thumbs up for children to travel through very dangerous deserts with strangers.

Shameful, Dave. Those children don't know any better. Your position on this matter is morally wrong. If you want to help them, help them in another way, just like we help people in other countries.

6
Likewise, if we paint an arrow on the moon so that the arrow is absolutely vertical, and if the moon is low on the horizon, then the arrow will appear vertical to any observer at any point on a flat surface, so long as they are observing at the same time.

When you are looking at the moon at the horizon, you are looking at the bottom/underside of the moon, for reasons previously described. You are not looking at the moon from its horizontal side.

A large green arrow painted on the underside of a giant floating Rubix Cube in the sky would be pointed in a different direction depending on where people stand around it. The green arrow would not be pointing in the same position for all observers. The same goes for the moon.

This seems to be the confusion. You are under the impression that when we are looking at the moon at the horizon, that we are looking at it on its horizontal side. We are always looking at the moon's underside, which I attempted to express with my previous comments on this topic.

7
Lets to back to the plane scene
This will not work at all.

I agree if we are watching two different planes rising out of the horizon at different angles, then their orientation will appear different.
But both observers are watching a single object – the moon – while standing vertically on a completely flat surface. So the moon must appear as having the same orientation to both.



Are you telling me that if you have these planes flying over you ever day, it is impossible to travel to a position where plane 1 to looks like plane 3?

That is what is happening between London and Australia. The moon is the plane in the above analogy. Its "cockpit" is tilted depending on how directly overhead it travels over you. The cockpits of the planes are always oriented on their path of movement, and so will the moon.

The latitude was originally defined based on the slanted angles of celestial bodies that come out of the horizon and travel across the sky, and so if the difference in latitude is about 90 degrees between London and Australia, the moon will be slanted by about that amount when it comes out of the horizon of those two locations.

8
This is what is happening with those images.

Lets to back to the plane scene:



Planes 1 and 3 can easily be rising out of the horizon at 90 degrees in relation to each other as so:



In fact, in your low altitude example, the difference between planes 1 and 3 was much wider than 90 degrees.

Now, lets consider how the latitude was originally defined:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+was+latitude+defined

Quote
lat·i·tude
ˈladəˌt(y)o͞od/
noun
noun: latitude; plural noun: latitudes

the angular distance of a place north or south of the earth's equator, or of a celestial object north or south of the celestial equator, usually expressed in degrees and minutes.

Basically, your latitude is defined by the angles that the celestial bodies rise out of the horizon. The sun rises out of the horizon at a slanted angle in London, and another slanted angle in Australia, and the difference between those two angles is the number of degrees of latitude between those two locations. In this case the difference is about 90 degrees.

The moon is at a similar altitude to the sun, in the Flat Earth model, and so it would behave in the same way.

9
Appaullingly, edby, I believe your arguments are the "why don't we ever see the sides of the moon and only its face" argument, except you are using walking to different places of the earth instead of the moving moon.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 21, 2018, 05:48:11 PM »
I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

11
Tom, this really is not the case we are discussing here. The case has been set out above, circle with observers at 12 and 6 o'clock, large vertical object at 3 o'clock.

And yes of course, as I pointed out earlier, if we follow the moon from rise in the East, to overhead, to setting in the West, it certainly appears to flip over. Totally agreeing with you there. But different case. Moon in same position, but observers in different position.

If you are talking about "why don't we ever see the sides of the moon and only its face," that is a somewhat different question than "why does the face of the moon rotate," and was addressed here:

Per your argument that we should be able to see the "sides" of the moon and not only its face, that is a fair one, but that is a different argument than the "rotation of the face" argument, which is addressed above.

To use the "we should see the sides of the moon" argument, you would first need to show that the version of perspective of the Ancient Greeks is true, which predicts that the perspective lines regress infinitely and continuously. A calculation from a mathematical model that assumes those axioms does not prove how perspective operates in the distance.

We see, empirically, that the higher a body is, the more time and distance it takes to see its side. You will see the colored side of a Rubix Cube suspended one foot above your head that recedes into the distance much faster than you would see the colored side of a Rubix Cube 100 feet in altitude above your head that recedes into the distance, and faster still than a Rubix cube 1000 feet in altitude above your head that recedes into the distance. The higher a body gets, the slower it turns to its side when it recedes from you.

Considering the above relationship, one can logically expect that that if it were to continue into the distance by orders of magnitude, the moon would either barely turn or not turn at all (it does turn a little as it passes by overhead, however, look up the Moon's Daily Liberation).

What did the Ancient Greeks do, exactly, to prove their model of perspective so that you can tell us how the moon should or should not behave?

12
Do they rotate up to 90 degrees as has been observed? No.

Actually, yes. It can even flip upside down 180 degrees. If you follow a plane as it flies over you from one horizon from the next one will see that it comes out of the horizon with its nose first, flies over you, and then enters the opposite horizon nose first.

If the plane is not flying directly over you, it will flip somewhat less than 180 degrees when it enters the horizon nose first on the opposite horizon.

The same is true with the Moon. The moon will seem to have flipped upside-down when it sets, up to 180 degrees depending on how close it is to passing over you.

13
Tom
Thank you for taking the time to attempt to demonstrate this proposed rotation. It is genuinely appreciated. However, you have only demonstrated that a lack of understanding of the argument's premise still remains. The Moon is being viewed at a low ANGULAR altitude. Think of it this way: we aren't seeing the underside of the object.

See the diagrams below. The plane's wings always stay horizontal when it's viewed from a low ANGULAR altitude. It's physically impossible for them to rotate.

https://preview.ibb.co/iNYBzo/plane_on_horizon.png
https://preview.ibb.co/nQ9jKo/moon_on_horizon.png

The cockpits of those planes do rotate, even at the low altitude:



It follows that the moon should also be slanted  if it is not flying directly over you, as shown in its summer and winter paths:


14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hours of Sunlight
« on: June 21, 2018, 03:12:17 AM »
I decided to look into how much daylight certain places have and I'm a little confused about something. Maybe someone can explain this.

I made a chart of the Sunlight hours for the USA on June 20th, 2018 when the sun would be at the Tropic of Cancer.

MAINE   15:53
MASS   15:17
NEW YORK     15:05
PENNSYLVANIA   15:01
DELAWARE   14:55
VIRGINIA   14:42
 (Nags Head) NORTH CAROLINA   14:36
(Georgetown) SOUTH CAROLINA   14:22
GEORGIA   14:15
(Jacksonville) FLORIDA  14:06
(Melbourne) FLORIDA    13:56
(Miami) FLORIDA     13:45

This one is easy. The sun's area of light overlaps the North Pole when the Sun is at the Tropic of Cancer. This is why higher latitudes increase in daylight duration until, when far enough North, the sun ceases to set at all and the Midnight Sun occurs.

15
Per your argument that we should be able to see the "sides" of the moon and not only its face, that is a fair one, but that is a different argument than the "rotation of the face" argument, which is addressed above.

To use the "we should see the sides of the moon" argument, you would first need to show that the version of perspective of the Ancient Greeks is true, which predicts that the perspective lines regress infinitely and continuously. A calculation from a mathematical model that assumes those axioms does not prove how perspective operates in the distance.

We see, empirically, that the higher a body is, the more time and distance it takes to see its side. You will see the colored side of a Rubix Cube suspended one foot above your head that recedes into the distance much faster than you would see the colored side of a Rubix Cube 100 feet in altitude above your head that recedes into the distance, and faster still than a Rubix Cube 1000 feet in altitude above your head that recedes into the distance. The higher a body gets, the slower it turns to its side when it recedes from you.

Considering the above relationship, one can logically expect that that if it were to continue into the distance by orders of magnitude, the moon would either barely turn or not turn at all (it does turn a little as it passes by overhead, however, look up the Moon's Daily Liberation).

What did the Ancient Greeks do, exactly, to prove their model of perspective so that you can tell us how the moon should or should not behave?

16
In the plane example I gave earlier, where various planes fly out of the horizon that are not flying over you, the cockpits of the planes are not all oriented in the same position when they come out of the horizon. The cockpits are oriented to align with the path of their travel at all times.

See this simplified and cartoony illustration:



There is also this from the wiki, showing how the orientation can even seem upside-down depending on how you stand in relation to the moon:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Quote
Q: Why does the orientation of the moon look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?

A: It doesn't. The orientation varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

In fact, the moon will seem upside down when it sets, just as in the plane illustration above, if those planes were to continue to the opposite horizon.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 20, 2018, 09:03:55 PM »
Trump gave in and is signing the executive order everyone wants to keep children with their families.

Rather than giving the kids to other family members to be cared for, as is the current process, now we'll just put the kids in jail WITH their parents! How thoughtful. But hey. This is what the media wants I guess. Kids in adult jails.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 20, 2018, 07:44:51 PM »
Quote
Mr Rowbotham claims to have calculated the distance to the Sun of some 700 miles. 'Later calculations' put this at 3000 miles.

That's okay. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

19
Tom you were corrected on this last time you brought up Lone Survivor. The pivotal scene you are referring to did not use 'the top of a mountain' but it was required for him to move to an exposed position. Which, as mentioned the last time, is to be expected with a sat phone, a device that requires line-of-sight to the 'eye in the sky' of the satellite.

From what I've read about it, I believe that they tried making contact with command at planned extraction points on mountain peaks before that end scene in the valley you are talking about.

http://sites.psu.edu/baderrclpassion/2014/03/26/lone-survivor/

Quote
Lone Survivor is based of the true story of Operation Red Wings, set during the Afghani war, and dramatizes the Navy SEAL counter-insurgent mission, where a four man surveillance team was tasked with tracking Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. To sum up, the four man team goes to reach their position when they stumble across local goat herders. After releasing the herders and realizing that the mission is compromised, they fall back and go to call for extraction, except communications are down and the mountain they’re on has no signal for the SAT phone.

This one calls it "radio contact," but the story is about a satellite phone with no signal:

https://moviegoersview.com/2014/01/lone-survivor/

Quote
Time on the base is spent fraternizing and talking wedding plans when they get the mission call from Lieutenant Commander Erik Kristensen played by (Eric Bana). The mission is plagued from the beginning with continual difficulty communicating with operations base. From poor to barely audible radio signals to no signal at all,  the men decide to hunker down and proceed later to a different peak location to try making radio contact again.

20
also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage?  i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up:   http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm

Good point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_autonomous_integrity_monitoring

Quote
Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) is a technology developed to assess the integrity of global positioning system (GPS) signals in a GPS receiver system. It is of special importance in safety-critical GPS applications, such as in aviation or marine navigation.

We are constantly told by fly-by RE'ers that GPS coverage is constant and everywhere.

There is even a movie about lack of satellite coverage and the problems it causes. In Lone Survivor, a true story depicted in a movie and a book of the same name, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got no signal on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 214  Next >