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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 431  Next >
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 04:45:59 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

    “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 10:37:52 AM »
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

On Sunlight Intensity:

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."

By the measure of sunlight intensity we find that you are incorrect. It is approximated by a triangle - gradual.

Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars

An incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star. The diameter of the stars is explained to be an illusion by conventional science, and are not their actual size based on perspective. That's not even how it works in your model. See:

The angular size of galaxies are also an illusion

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:13:22 AM »
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

    "If we could see a star in the horizon, as easily as in the zenith, a half of the whole number, or 3,000, would be visible on any clear night. But stars near the horizon are seen through so great a thickness of atmosphere as greatly to obscure their light. and only the brightest ones can there be seen. As a result of this obscuration, it is not likely that more than 2,000 stars can ever be taken in at a single view by any ordinary eye."

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:43:57 AM »
No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:31:38 AM »
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:20:39 AM »
You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

You wrote as part of your argument, "In this one, on a page called "Equatorial Mount Tracking Errors" the author shows stars which drift out of shot within a short amount of time on an EQ mount." Isn't that out of shot equal to out of frame?

That was done with a telescope, where a single star was in the frame. On the other hand this is a view of a whole swath of stars. Unlike that example, this was not done with a telescope.

The image you posted previously indicated that it was a shot of bottom part of the Orion constellation. We can see the bright star Rigel towards the lower right, and that the Orion constellation is lightly drawn in.

I already cited where he didn't manipulate the telescope, "...the equatorial mount, an Astro-Physics Mach1, is left to track on its own and is unguided."

This indicates that he didn't have a guided type mount, not that he didn't try to fix errors along the way to get a pristine result. He obviously is conscious of errors and making an artificially good scene, considering the software manipulation used.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 03, 2022, 08:31:20 PM »

Given that you believe forecasting the weather is a scam and thus are presenting a theory for a conspiracy occuring, a few critical thought questions:

1) From this assertion, what would be the motivation for news weatherman to be lying and scamming the public?

2) If weathermens motivation is money, how are they making money from this? Are insurance companies secretly paying weathermen to lie?

3) Do you believe weatherman (i.e. on the news) are paid actors?

4) Do you believe weatherman go into college or university thinking that predicting weather is possible but then when they are about to graduate or are then hired by weather companies they are then told in secret that everything they learned is a lie and a scam? Are they paid to keep the big secret going and their fake careers going? Who pays them?

5) Given your belief that forecasting weather is a scam and thus a theory of a conspiracy going on, do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist or a zetetic / empirical observer?

6) How do you ensure that your beliefs in conspiracy theories don't fog up your empirical observations?

This was explained to you:

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level. Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam? Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

No, they aren't fictitious. They just aren't very good. The scam came in when society convinced you that we were a super-advanced civilization who could model gravity and the weather. We are not and can not. This is all described in the NOVA documentary I embedded above.

Scam does not necessarily mean 'entirely fake'. Scam could mean that you were scammed by society into thinking that science was better than it is.

Who said that it would have drifted out of frame? It could have wobbled around, and errors fixed by software. He could have also been monitoring the situation casually and readjusting it when it did start drifting out of frame. He mentions three different pieces of software used to manipulate the images and, quite obviously, he is using the software to fix errors. We know that he is using software to fix errors, yet you continue to insist on this farcical example.

You don't have a good example of this at all. It is not a video from a telescopic equatorial mount, and nor is it raw video from a camera mounted equatorial mount. You continuously insist on this defective and invalid example because you can't contradict the sources given to you showing that it doesn't work.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 03, 2022, 02:01:19 AM »
These questions were already asked and answered. Go back and read them and address the responses.

Quote from: stack
You would have to move the camera, aka, reposition the frame, throughout the night.

Actually repositioning can be helped by software. The area just needs to be captured.

Quote from: stack
The guy with the 4+ hour unguided timelapse said (like I cited before), "In the first sequence from January 18 the equatorial mount, an Astro-Physics Mach1, is left to track on its own and is unguided." For 4+ ours and the nebula didn't go out of frame. So obviously is can be done for long durations, especially with a $10k EQ mount.

An equatorial mount might help get the camera in the general area, but doesn't guarantee that the stars will be exactly in the same place, or didn't zig zag around. This is likely why he opted for a contrived way of making the video in software rather than simply doing a single long video from the mount itself. A far simpler methodology would just be to take the video from the mount.

Again, the actual methodology used in this is completely different than what you are suggesting demonstrates is possible.

Quote from: stack
If no one knows, why did you say: "That's not taken through a telescope, which was claimed by the poster was possible." What impact would a telescope versus a camera have on an EQ mount?

The impact to the discussion is that the poster claimed that stars would be stable in telescopic equatorial mounts and we received an unrelated example which did not involve telescopes and which did not take a video from the mount and was pasted together in software.

The person is a big vague about what exactly he did in the software, but the matter is tainted by the methodology. Part of the purpose of the software was obviously to fix errors.

Quote from: stack
And sure, it can be done with any camera. But not with any lens. There's no way to keep a star in frame over 4+ hours without an EQ mount.

Incorrect. There is a distinct nebula in the frame, for example. If you were to take a series of photos of that area around the nebula at different times of the night you could put your images together in software and capture the stars around that area. No equatorial mount required.

Quote from: stack
After 15 or so seconds, without an EQ mount, you'll start to get trails and/or field rotation. This guy's exposures were 30 seconds.

Unguided equatorial mounts are capable of very short exposures, as indicated by my original sources. This falls in line with what was claimed.

The problem is that your example goes on to put the images together in software for his final product rather than recording the entire video from the mount. This is not good evidence that you can buy a mount and keep the stars static all night long through a telescope as was claimed by the poster of this thread, or even do this with only a camera on an unguided equatorial mount without all the software adjustments and stacking.

Quote from: stack
What does a telescope lens versus a camera lens have to do with an EQ mount?

Who knows? I was not the one who introduced that absurdity into the thread.

Did I say that a wide angle lens was required? No, I did not. Please refrain from fibbing in these discussions. It was clearly used it as an example, and the word required was not mentioned anywhere.

It can be done with any camera. Take a picture of a set of stars a few times over the night and then you can put the images together in software. You don't even need an equatorial mount.

Obviously you must know this has nothing to do with a wide angle lens and are using a tactic of posting frivolities and delaying discussing the concept, to avoid talking about the fact that the person in the link does not actually record a video directly from the mount and goes on at length to discuss extensive use of special software editing and timelapse stacking software to make a software adjusted video from a series of images.

Quote from: Kangaroony
the fact that he's "never seen" something himself is a weak argument.

Yeah, lets all just go ahead and assume that there are cameras with equally powerful lenses to astronomical telescopes based on an internet comment on a forum.

What a disgusting miscarriage of an argument that we should assume this without having seen it because to say otherwise is a "weak argument". In fact, one person claiming this without evidence and another person following up to defend it with incredulity when challenged is one of the weakest arguments possible.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 11:00:31 PM »
Quote from: stack
You started out with "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." Well, it's been shown that obviously, they do. Quite often in fact.

Incorrect. They do not. The same flight times and flight routes are not possible for the return flight. There is a time and a path difference.

If a taxi goes directly through a city to take me to my destination and on the return trip the taxi wants to take me on a scenic route which goes around a city it is most certainly not the same route.

Quote from: stack
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.

A lot of flights are shut down right now due to Covid. This is irrelevant. Airliners have reported nine and a half hours.

Quote from: stack
Sure, planes are reliant on weather

Which inserts additional variables and requires the analyses in these discussions to know the properties of the winds.

Quote from: stack
How would a telescope versus a camera with an equally powerful lens be different on the same EQ mount?

I've never seen a camera with an equally powerful lens as an astronomical telescope. Who knew that telescope manufacturers were unnecessarily making their telescopes so large when they could pack it down into a small package and get equal results, as indicated by someone's claim on an internet forum. ::)

Quote from: stack
I think you missed a bit, he used:

William Optics RedCat astrograph at f/5 with a 250mm focal length. The field of view is 8° by 5.5°. That's referred to as a "telephoto" lens, opposite of a "wide-angle lens" as you suggest, which would be 50mm or lower. And with that FOV his target would be out of frame right quick. Instead, he was able to keep the target in frame for 4+ hours, unguided.

And if you had kept reading you would have found that he used a series of images and special time-lapse stacking software to put them together.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 09:33:43 PM »
Quote from: stack
Yeah, we know the jestream makes east to west flights faster. So what?

Much longer? Looks about on average to be about an hour, hour and half difference - Is that "Much longer"?:

If you found recent flights between London and NYC taking under 7 hours, it is just more evidence that the particular nature of the winds and nature of the weather is to blame. The hour difference from the main jet stream route that you found is also evidence that the return winds can be going almost as fast as the main jet stream.

It is easy to find that airliners have reported the duration from London to NYC to be nine and a half hours:

Meanwhile flights from New York to London have been achieved in under five and a half hours. This is a rather significant difference.

Quote from: stack
It seems Continental was using 757's back in 2012 for trans-atlantic flights. So what?

So if your airliner is stingy and gives you the wrong plane with insufficient fuel you might find that your nonstop flight makes stops. The point again is that the planes are highly reliant on the weather to reach their destination.

Quote from: stack
Still, you said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." But of course they are possible because most flights don't use and try to avoid the jetstream east to west. They are doing so without the jetstream. So I don't know why you made that statement.

In these FE discussions there is heavy emphasis on flight times, and the flights pointed out are typically the fastest route in the fastest winds. They can't make the same time without the jet streams, or even the same path. If you point out any particular flight as some sort of proof you need to separate out the winds. This is another element to the assumptions.

That's not taken through a telescope, which was claimed by the poster was possible.

And if you read the entire page it says that he took a series of 30 second exposure images and stacked them on top of each other with special time-lapse software. You don't even need an equatorial mount to do that with singular images. Just take a series of wide angle photographs over the night and align them in software.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 08:31:35 PM »
Irrelevant. The green diverging southern path in my last image is still in the North Atlantic and moves through that area.

And no, the return flights take much longer between London and NYC. The faster NYC to London flight is only possible because of the jetstream which has the quickest winds.

If you get on the wrong plane with insufficient fuel sometimes those "nonstop" return flights even have to stop for fuel:

    Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.

    The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes.

A "control flight" is in reference the the claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 07:53:48 PM »
I don't know what the winds were like that day. Sure, they can divert from a typical great circle due to winds, traffic too. You said, "When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds."

They can do that due to the aforementioned headwind issue, but you make it seem like that's the only way they can fly, which is not true.

Actually the last graphic I provided shows a returning flight which did veer off significantly to the South. If you were expecting such a statement describing that planes fly significantly to the south to account for all possible wind conditions in the North which might provide a Northern path, you are mistaken. I said that planes take that longer southern way around, and they do.

The fact that two planes flying from London to NYC, with the same point of origin, can take wildly different paths to reach the same destination clearly demonstrates that the planes are flying an optimal route based on wind conditions and it is not a route primarily based on closest geometrical points. The dotted line in the image is the most optimal geometrical route for an RE and the planes fly nowhere near that. The fact is that the planes are highly reliant on the winds and there is no "control flight".

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 07:01:37 PM »
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.

(my bold); Why do you invent these things?  That, sir, is complete fabrication, and obvious to anyone who flies or watches a flight-tracking service. 

Currently; ETH552, UAE9249, PLM999, MPH6161 for example; all travelling Europe-North America, and all mixed in with West-East traffic.

Incorrect. While the winds can shift around, there is generally a separation from the West-East traffic on the return flight.


Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?

Looking at flights between NY and London (click to see route):

BA 185 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 941 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 16 (KEWR - EGLL)

The FlightAware anticipated routes are quite similar in both directions, but the actual routes for past flights are really remote from each other:

The two westbound routes are either 800 km north or 1,000 km south of the eastbound route (the dotted line shows the shortest path).

Why are the two westbound routes different and so remote from each other? Why this difference of about 1,800 km?

Why BA 185 route seems to be composed of two arcs?

Did the pilots changed their mind in flight because of the jet streams? Is it related to ETOPS constraints, or alternate airport at Santa Maria? or something else?

Top Answer from the thread:

The reason this is done is due to the winds aloft. The Jet Stream is a powerful current of air that blows in a west to east direction. Airplanes crossing the Atlantic from west to east take advantage of the jet stream to get there faster and save fuel, so a course is chosen to stay in the stream as much as possible. Airplanes going from east to west will be slowed by the jet stream, using more fuel and taking longer to get across, so a course is chosen to avoid the strongest winds.

The difference can be very significant, I've been on flights from NYC to London which take 6h 30m, and ones from London to NYC that take almost 9 hours.

We can clearly see that the return flights on those routes do not follow the same path.

Quote from: stack
Bottom line, East to West. Top line, West to East. The exact opposite of what you claim:

What were the winds like on that day? Flights regularly optimize their routes on a daily basis, even multiple times a day, depending on conditions. In the graphic I provided above there was one plane which took a far +800km northern route from London to NYC and another plane which took a southern route over 1000 km below the middle route. The routes are clearly not overlapping. They are finding a route optimal for the journey and veer significantly away from the East-West traffic, and can span hundreds of km southward.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 431  Next >