The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TissueOfLies on February 14, 2020, 02:34:37 AM

Title: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 14, 2020, 02:34:37 AM
Hi,

First time poster here, so go easy on me...  >o<

I have a friend who is a strident Flat Earther, and we have had many debates around this.

The one point that we are completely unable to get past is whether the moon is local. My point is that of the moon were local, then we would see different faces of it.

As an example, the moon in its orbit, passes pretty much directly over Manaus, in central Brazil. It is visible on Bogota around 2000 miles to the west, and Salvador, 2000 miles to the east of Manaus. Now if the moon is 3000 miles up, as the wiki states, then the view from the two locations should be different, but it's not. This borne out by a Google search, which shows that every single photo of the moon shoes the same hemisphere, only rotated.

He has been unable to explain this, I was going that someone here could?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: AATW on February 14, 2020, 12:39:27 PM
If the sun and moon were local and moving above us then the angular size would change as the distance between you and it would vary greatly over the course of 24 hours. The angular speed would also vary. And yes, we wouldn't all see the same face of the moon.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 14, 2020, 10:31:38 PM
Any FErs want to explain how moon phasing works?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2020, 10:40:54 PM
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 14, 2020, 11:07:07 PM
Thank you for that explanation. So if I've understood it correctly, the light from the moon cascades straight down, and then arcs as it gets close to the earth, so that at any viewpoint, we see the face of the moon that is facing straight down? I'm fairly new to this - so I hope my understanding is correct?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2020, 11:19:12 PM
Yes that's correct. That's a good one sentence description.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 15, 2020, 02:31:28 AM
Ok, cool. So if I'm in a well, that's let's say 10 foot deep and 3 feet across, and I have a friend who is 2000 miles away, also in a well that's 10 feet deep and 3 feet across, so that we both have a fairly wide angle view of the sky above, at any one point in time, only one of us would be able to see the moon - the one who is physically below the moon. For the other, the light rays would be at too shallow an angle, and would just pass over the mouth of the well, right?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2020, 12:06:13 AM
 That sounds right.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: iamcpc on February 16, 2020, 02:26:01 AM
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.

Tom,


In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2020, 03:35:17 AM
The nearside of the Moon always seen is accounted for in the FE celestial model of Electromagnetic Acceleration:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I think it is interesting that the same model which explains the sunsets also predicts as a matter of geometry that we must always see the nearside of celestial bodies, and that is what we see of the Moon. To explain it in RE they had to bring in other external theories about tidal locking.

Tom,

In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Yes, it all does seem to come together with EA. In a PM I mentioned something to Sandokan related to this that you might be interested in, since you enjoy discussing the FE biblical models.

As you probably know, during the seven days of creation in Genesis one of God's first acts is to separate light from the darkness, creating the day and night, so that it is not daytime all over the Earth. Then in Job 38:24 he seems to ask Job a riddle: "Where is the way that the light is divided?" or "What way is light parted?" depending on the translation.

It seems to suggest to me that God is talking about something he did to light. Perhaps the answer is that it was bent upwards.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 17, 2020, 04:33:08 PM
That sounds right.

Thanks. Actually, I didn't choose those distances completely at random. I actually performed this experiment with a friend that was in Cairo at the time, 2,400 miles from London. Neither of us was in a well, I was in a stairwell that had a large skylight (2mx2m) , and he was in an old tower that didn't have a roof. At the same time, in a video call, we were able to see the moon from our respective positions. Given that at for at least one us, the light waves would be travelling fairly parallel to the ground, the moon shouldn't have been visible for one of us.

Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: iamcpc on February 18, 2020, 09:15:31 PM

Tom,

In the flat disk models i always really struggled with the lunar cycles. Now reading this it really is starting to make a lot more sense! If the light is behaving in the way described then it does seem possible to have the lunar cycles that we observe.

Yes, it all does seem to come together with EA. In a PM I mentioned something to Sandokan related to this that you might be interested in, since you enjoy discussing the FE biblical models.

As you probably know, during the seven days of creation in Genesis one of God's first acts is to separate light from the darkness, creating the day and night, so that it is not daytime all over the Earth. Then in Job 38:24 he seems to ask Job a riddle: "Where is the way that the light is divided?" or "What way is light parted?" depending on the translation.

It seems to suggest to me that God is talking about something he did to light. Perhaps the answer is that it was bent upwards.

There are only three things I really struggle with in the flat disk models.

1. The flight time/path issue where observed flight times/distances/paths don't mach predicted flight times/distances/paths on the flat disk model.
2. The sunrise/sunset positioning.  The flat disk models have varying predictions that sometimes the sunrise should further north/south than observed and sometimes the sunset should be further north/south than observed
3. There is no south pole. I believe the earth does have a fixed area known as the south pole.


It's because of these I'm more easily able to imagine the earth represented as a flat plane in the traditional map model. These models are used to document things like the sunrise/sunset, modern flight path tracking, and it has a fixed area known as the south pole. The predictions for 1 and 2 listed above exactly match what we observe as best i can tell.


The major downside is that there is so much more work and research put into the flat disk models to explain things like the lunar cycle and seasons that no one really put any effort into on the other FE models. I really wish the wiki had at least some information about a few of the other models.
         
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 02:30:19 AM
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 03:42:00 AM
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.

You could probably start by contributing to the celestial model by not cherry-picking astronomer's words to suit your narrative and actually examining the greater findings. Your signature tagline is:

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy"

Taken from an article: "The Size of the Universe May Be Inaccurate" 2011
https://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Size-of-the-Universe-May-Be-Inaccurate-181163.shtml

Dr. Pauline Barmby continues:

“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results.
The conclusions directly contradict the calculations made in 1924 by famed astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that the Milky Way is in fact one of very many galaxies, spread out in the Cosmos.
Data collected by analyzing Cepheid variables was used to determine that galaxies are currently flying apart from each other. Dark energy – as a concept – was introduced to explain this behavior.
“It doesn’t mean that everything we thought we knew is wrong, but if you want to do the best possible job, this effect needs to be considered,” the UWO researcher goes on to say, adding that an estimated 25 percent of all Cepheid stars were found to be shrinking via constant mass loss.
“If one measurement examined the stars when they were younger and the other when they were older, then the disagreement would make more sense. By taking images with an infrared telescope we can see the dust in the mass that is being lost, which allows us to measure it,” Barmby explains.
It remains to be seen how the international astronomical community will react to the findings. If they are confirmed, then we could expect to see a host of studies aimed at reassessing the size and behavior of the Universe."

The team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at your tagline, a device now millions of miles away from earth.

It would be more genuine for you to use the full breath of science to try and support your narrative rather than carefully selecting a short gasp to do so.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 04:36:28 AM
From the article:

Recent studies carried out by international teams of astronomers are reveling that the Universe may not have the size we currently attribute to it. At this point, it is difficult to say whether it's actually smaller or bigger than existing mathematical calculations show.

Sounds like they are saying that they don't really know to me. I trust Professor Barmby and this article over a comment on an internet forum who claims that it is known.

"Difficult to say" = Lack of knowledge

I fail to see where you have pointed out in the article where they do claim to know. Professor Barmby makes a fairly direct statement about their problems and the lack of confidence. Arguing that there is other knowledge elsewhere that proves it, without demonstration, is a very weak argument. Arguing that there is a quote which says that the current size might not be wrong, is also a very weak argument. Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tumeni on February 19, 2020, 09:42:41 AM
From the article:

Recent studies carried out by international teams of astronomers are reveling that the Universe may not have the size we currently attribute to it. At this point, it is difficult to say whether it's actually smaller or bigger than existing mathematical calculations show.

Sounds like they are saying that they don't really know to me. I trust Professor Barmby and this article over a comment on an internet forum who claims that it is known.

"Difficult to say" = Lack of knowledge

I fail to see where you have pointed out in the article where they do claim to know. Professor Barmby makes a fairly direct statement about their problems and the lack of confidence. Arguing that there is other knowledge elsewhere that proves it, without demonstration, is a very weak argument. Arguing that there is a quote which says that the current size might not be wrong, is also a very weak argument. Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?

No, Tom. You need to read the direct statements the other poster added as well as the ones you picked.

We know from measurements thus far the size of the universe to a degree of precision. What the quoted scientist is saying is there is a margin of error, commensurate with the measuring methods used, and their degree of precision, and that what she really wants is to refine the measures to a greater degree of precision.

Analogy;

If I say that it's exactly 250 miles from Edinburgh to London, according to the odometer on my car, but a surveyor has determined it as 249.8, does that make me wrong, or correct within reasonable bounds of error given the equipment I used?
 
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tumeni on February 19, 2020, 09:43:50 AM
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.

So you don't really know, is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2020, 11:23:50 AM
Professor Barmby says directly that they don't know. Why should we trust you over direct statements from an authority on this matter?

You seem to be extremely selective about who you regard as an authority and about what.
I mean, plenty of authorities will tell you that the earth is round but you dismiss all of those.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to cherry-pick sources to support your viewpoints while disregarding sources which do not?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 03:17:31 PM
We know from measurements thus far the size of the universe to a degree of precision. What the quoted scientist is saying is there is a margin of error, commensurate with the measuring methods used, and their degree of precision, and that what she really wants is to refine the measures to a greater degree of precision.

The article isn't about a margin of error. Please quote that, rather than stating a fib.

"We know from measurements..." Like the words of a random person on an internet forum is enough qualification to tell us about the universe. Not. Kindly provide the studies which directly and indisputably proves the size of the universe independent of any assumption or axiom.

You seem to be extremely selective about who you regard as an authority and about what.
I mean, plenty of authorities will tell you that the earth is round but you dismiss all of those.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to cherry-pick sources to support your viewpoints while disregarding sources which do not?

What makes you think that I dismissed them? The EA page agrees that they had reasoning to believe that the earth was a globe.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2020, 03:52:44 PM
What makes you think that I dismissed them?
Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 04:02:51 PM
What makes you think that I dismissed them?
Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

Addressing != Dismissing.

We address Aristotile's claim that he saw a sinking ship and therefore the earth must be round. It's not dismissed.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 11:07:50 PM
What makes you think that I dismissed them?
Your posting history.
You have a habit of using sources to back up your arguments (reasonable enough, although it depends on the credibility of the source) but then dismissing sources which don't agree with your world view. You are saying this person's opinion is credible because of his expertise. Fair enough. But you have a long history of dismissing that when it's sources which show your beliefs to be incorrect.

I am afraid that you are mistaken.

Addressing != Dismissing.

We address Aristotile's claim that he saw a sinking ship and therefore the earth must be round. It's not dismissed.

What you are failing to 'address' is that Professor Barmby (The author of the quote in your sig) is citing research data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope. A NASA launched telescope that is now millions of miles away from earth. So are you now accepting NASA data/findings?

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/infographic.jpg)
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 11:16:47 PM
Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 11:17:28 PM
Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 11:21:49 PM
Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

'When we look into the sky' is a general statement. It doesn't say 'From a space telescope'. Distances are possible to be derived from Earth but not a Space Telescope? Is that what you are arguing?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 11:22:27 PM
Professor Barmby can use or accept whatever data she wants. Her statement on astronomy's biggest problem stands.

Her statement is based upon research/data gathered by a NASA instrument in space. Nothing else. So her statement stands, yes, even if it's out of context, but the fact of the matter, it's NASA derived. So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

'When we look into the sky' is a general statement. It doesn't say 'From a space telescope'. Distances are possible to derive from Earth but not a Space Telescope? Is that what you are arguing?

Here's the full quote you cherry picked:

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is,” adds Barmby, who is based at the university's Department of Physics and Astronomy.
“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results."


Again, "The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results."

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 11:30:06 PM
She made what is clearly a general statement, and you think that she's only talking about space telescopes?

Interesting. Why can we derive distances only from Earth and not from a space telescope?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 11:35:14 PM
She made what is clearly a general quote, and you think that she's only talking about space telescopes?

Interesting. Why can we derive distances only from Earth and not from a space telescope?

Apparently she thinks we can do better at deriving more accurate distances using space telescopes, hence why she and her team used data from a space telescope, launched by NASA.

A bio about Pauline Barmby, Astronomer: My current research focuses on nearby galaxies, particularly the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and other galaxies in our Local Group. I’ve used quite a few different telescopes and instruments, with a lot of emphasis on infrared observations with the Spitzer Space Telescope.

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?

Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2020, 11:39:33 PM
She says that she has used many telescopes. Are you doubling down on your claim that her statement applies only to space telescopes, despite its general nature?

Can you please explain why space telescopes can't determine distance but that Earth telescopes can?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 19, 2020, 11:57:08 PM
She says that she has used many telescopes. Are you doubling down on your claim that her statement applies only to space telescope, despite its general nature?

Can you please explain why space telescopes can't determine distance but that Earth telescopes can?

I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope. In case you're unclear on how the data was derived from a NASA telescope in space, here's the original article from Barmby and others:

From Barmby’s paper which is cited in the article where you got your cherry-picked sig quote:

Galactic Cepheids with Spitzer: II. Search for Extended Infrared Emission
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3386.pdf

"A deep and detailed examination of 29 classical Cepheids with the Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed three stars with strong nearby extended emission detected in multiple bands which appears to be physically associated with the stars...
Nevertheless, our direct evidence that mass loss is active during the Cepheid phase is an important confirmation that these processes need to be included in evolutionary and pulsation models of these stars, and should be taken into account in the calibration of the Cepheid distance scale."

So do you now believe in NASA acquired research and data?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 12:03:34 AM
Quote
I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope.

You are apparently claiming that the statement only applies to space telescopes, not all telescopes or observations. That's why you are screaming that it was a NASA telescope and therefore the statement can only be used in context of space telescopes. Please explain this stance for us. Why doesn't the statement apply to all telescopes?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 12:12:02 AM
Quote
I never said space telescopes can't determine anything. The point you are not 'addressing' is that your sig quote comes from a researcher that based the information on data from a NASA space telescope.

You are apparently claiming that the statement only applies to space telescopes, not all telescopes or observations. That's why you are screaming that it was a NASA telescope and therefore the statement can only be used in context of space telescopes. Please explain this stance for us. Why doesn't the statement apply to all telescopes?

You're still missing the point and not addressing it. Her research and why she made that statement is based upon her research using a NASA Space Telescope. You are using her quote (out of context) which is based on her research using the Spitzer NASA Space Telescope. Therefore, I assume you believe that using a NASA Space Telescope helps us to get better information about the cosmos. Ergo, you believe a Nasa Space Telescope is real and useful. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 12:17:09 AM
Does the statement apply to space telescopes or to all telescopes?

If you claim that it applies to all telescopes then your criticism is invalid.

If you claim that it applies only to space telescopes then you are wrong, and you know it, as it is claimed that they can do everything that an earth telescope can.

Hence, the quote does apply to all telescopes, and your clear avoidance of answering this question settles the matter.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 12:28:23 AM
Does the statement apply to space telescopes or to all telescopes?

If you claim that it applies to all telescopes then your criticism is invalid.

If you claim that it applies only to space telescopes then you are wrong, and you know it, as it is claimed that they can do everything that an earth telescope can.

Hence, the quote does apply to all telescopes, and your clear avoidance of answering this question settles the matter.

As evidenced by the quote you used (out of context) and the author of said quote and the work she has done that led to that quote using the Spitzer Space Telescope to better understand celestial distances with greater precision you believe a NASA Space Telescope is real and useful. Cool.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 12:43:22 AM
So, now you are not even denying that the statement applies to all telescopes. You agree by your noticeable silence that the statement applies to all telescopes. Therefore the statement stands. It applies to all telescopes and does not have anything to do with only space telescopes.

Even if NASA's claims were true, the statement that we don't know how big the universe is, is significant. We have a statement from Astronomers that they don't know the distance of the things they are observing. A statement which, as you implicitly agree, has nothing to do with only space telescopes.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 01:06:56 AM
So, now you are not even denying that the statement applies to all telescopes. You agree by your noticeable silence that the statement applies to all telescopes. Therefore the statement stands. It applies to all telescopes and does not have anything to do with only space telescopes.

Even if NASA's claims were true, the statement that we don't know how big the universe is, is significant. We have a statement from Astronomers that they don't know the distance of the things they are observing. A statement which, as you implicitly agree, has nothing to do with only space telescopes.

Still missing the point, I see. Your quote is from a scholar who used a NASA Space Telescope to arrive at her conclusions. The only guess is that you approve of NASA technology to help us unlock the secrets of the cosmos. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 01:19:28 AM
By your silence we have already established that it makes no difference if she uses a children's telescope in her garden or NASA's space telescope. The biggest problem in astronomy remains the same.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 01:32:09 AM
By your silence we have already established that it makes no difference if she uses a children's telescope in her garden or NASA's space telescope.

Apparently it makes a difference if you had actually read her paper I cited.

The biggest problem in astronomy remains the same.

No it doesn't if you had actually read her paper I cited. It gets better.

And the best part is that you are siding with research derived from NASA space technology. Kudos to you for coming around.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 01:41:29 AM
The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree that the statement applies to all telescopes.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 20, 2020, 01:48:13 AM
The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree with the fact that the statement applies to all telescopes.
Really don't understand what's difficult here. There is plenty of evidence that has been provided that shows the context under which the statement is made. If you wish to use it in a different context, then surely the onus is on you to provide an example of when this quote is used in the context in which you are applying it, i.e. when referencing ground based telescopes?
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 01:48:40 AM
The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree with the fact that the statement applies to all telescopes.

As cited before, her statements are in regard to a research paper stating, "A deep and detailed examination of 29 classical Cepheids with the Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed three stars with strong nearby extended emission detected in multiple bands which appears to be physically associated with the stars..."

So, if you take here quote flatly and out of context, at a minimum, research using the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope shows that we need to better explore precision when it comes to deriving distances within the cosmos. If you agree with that, then you are accepting that use of the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope shows that we need to better explore precision when it comes to deriving distances within the cosmos.

You're essentially agreeing with her research, which is comprised of data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope. De facto, you believe a NASA launched instrument is useful and real.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 01:52:11 AM
No, posting her quote is not agreeing with any research or technologies. The statement is not made in sole reference to space telescopes. You have agreed that the statement applies to all telescopes, and is of a general nature.

Will you tell us that I am wrong and that the statement only applies to space telescopes? Answer with a statement that the quote applies to either all telescopes or only space telescopes, please.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 01:52:56 AM
No, it's not agreeing with any research or technologies. The statement is not made in reference to space telescopes. You have agreed that the statement applies to all telescopes, and is of a general nature.

Will you tell us that the statement only applies to space telescopes?

Read her paper I already referenced. At the end of the day, you are agreeing with NASA data. Good for you.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 02:07:26 AM
Once again, your silence tells us that the statement applies to all telescopes. Not only space telescopes. Your argument is very weak.

You are essentially arguing that if a surveyor who uses GPS to get his position for projects made a statement that "surveyors always assume a Flat Earth in procedures and calculations regardless of whether or not GPS is used", that we must therefore accept that there are satellites in space in order to use his statement which does not rely on GPS, because he uses GPS for his projects. A rather weak argument tactic. Almost as if you are desperate to make some kind of argument.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 02:12:09 AM
Once again, you tell us that the statement applies to all telescopes. Not only space telescopes. Your argument is very weak.

You are essentially arguing that if a surveyor once used GPS to get his position for a project and stated that surveyors always assume a Flat Earth in procedures and calculations, GPS or not, that we must therefore accept that there are satellites in space in order to use his statement which does not rely on GPS. A rather weak argument tactic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Your whole thing is this is about 'addressing' things, not 'dismissing' them, right. What you're not addressing is that the author of your favorite quote was stating such in regard to her research solely using the Spitzer Space Telescope. She was interviewed for that piece because of the paper she co-authored that solely used the NASA Spitzer Telescope to investigate and record their findings.

So by heralding her quote you are thereby heralding the tool she used to derive the findings: A NASA launched telescope.

Therfore, you herald the findings begot by a NASA instument. It's really just logic.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 02:18:38 AM
The astronomer's statement applies to all telescopes. It applies whether one accepts NASA or not, and thus can be used freely. You have failed to show, or even claim, that the statement applies only to NASA space technologies.

The statement is very plain and obvious as well, that she is talking about when we look into the sky generally. It has nothing to do with NASA, by your own silenced admission.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 02:30:20 AM
The astronomer's statement applies to all telescopes. It applies whether one accepts NASA or not, and thus can be used freely. You have failed to show, or even claim, that the statement applies only to NASA space technologies.

The statement is very plain and obvious as well, that she is talking about when we look into the sky generally. It has nothing to do with NASA, by your own silenced admission.

The whole point of her paper is that through the NASA Spitzer Telescope her team could see that there may be some mass erosion of Cepheid stars that could lead to less than precise distance measurements if said erosion wasn't taken into account. All of her findings are based on observations through the NASA Spitzer Telescope. The reason she is saying we may not know the precise distance of Cepheid stars is because of her research using the NASA Spitzer Telescope.

Still glad to see you're backing NASA.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 02:35:49 AM
It doesn't matter if astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at in general it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope.

You have made an entirely artificial and transparently desperate argument.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 02:37:29 AM
It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 02:46:21 AM
It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.

No, they didn't. The quote specifically says "when we look at something in the sky..." and not "when a telescope on the other side of the sun...".

The quote of a general nature and you have consistently refused to answer whether the quote applies to all telescopes or only space telescopes because doing so will instantly annihilate your argument and show it to be a sham. Instead, you dance around, screaming that she got info from NASA so therefore we have to accept everything that NASA says. Weak.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 02:54:58 AM
It doesn't matter is astronomers use NASA's telescope data. If the astronomers tell us that they don't know how to interpret what they are looking at it really has nothing to do with the technical nature of that telescope data.

Read Barmby's paper I cited. It's quite clear how they interpreted the data. That's the whole point - They achieved an interpretation after examining data from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope.

No, they didn't. The quote specifically says "when we look at something in the sky..." and not "when a telescope on the other side of the sun...".

The quote of a general nature and you have consistently refused to answer whether the quote applies to all telescopes or only space telescopes because doing so will instantly annihilate your argument and show it to be a sham. Instead, you dance around, screaming that she got info from NASA so therefore we have to accept everything that NASA says. Weak.

Her paper is all about, "when a telescope on the other side of the sun..." solely using a NASA Telescope, we found interesting things regarding the mass of Cepheid stars that may make us think how we measure distances far off in the cosmos. Interesting stuff.

Her paper solely cites the NASA Spitzer Telescope as her source for data. Therefore you must be NASA friendly at this point, at least regarding this one piece of space apparatus.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 03:03:50 AM
Incorrect. She has used many different telescopes in her life. You quoted from her bio.

How do you know that she is talking solely about space telescopes? Are you claiming that space telescopes can't determine distances, but that Earth telescopes can? We have seen that this question is too hard for you to answer, and avoidance is necessary.

She is talking about all telescopes in the quote and so it doesn't matter whether she uses NASA data for something. The sentiment is that they don't know what they are looking at, regardless of what telescope technology it comes from. A statement perfectly valid for FE to quote.

Again, your argument amounts to agreeing that they state that they don't know how to interpret the data, but that they got info from NASA, and so we must accept NASA. A very underwhelming argument.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 03:10:28 AM
Wrong. She has used many different telescopes in her life. You quoted from her resume.

Indeed, she has. But for the paper she was asked about in that article/interview, it stated, "A deep and detailed examination of 29 classical Cepheids with the Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed three stars with strong nearby extended emission detected in multiple bands which appears to be physically associated with the stars..." She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

How do you know that she is talking solely about space telescopes? Are you claiming that space telescopes can't determine distances, but that Earth telescopes can? We have seen that this question is too hard for you to answer, and avoidance is necessary.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I'm not even sure where this line of non-reasoning is even coming from.

She is talking about all telescopes in the quote and so it doesn't matter whether she uses NASA data for something.

How do you know that?

The sentiment is that they don't know what they are looking at, regardless of what telescope technology it comes from. A statement perfectly valid for FE to quote.

"Sentiment'? If you want to talk 'sentiment' no, actually the 'sentiment' is that we can get a better understanding of deep cosmos distances using tools like the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope, which is what she and her team used solely to derive their findings.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 03:25:51 AM
" She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

So, after all, you are arguing that the quote is talking about her study specifically and not astronomy in general. Thanks for clarifying that you think her quote only applies to her study. Obviously wrong, however. She is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is when a lady didn't know how to interpret NASA data in her study" - stack, probably
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 03:28:57 AM
" She doesn't mention any other telescopes. Just the NASA one.

So, after all, you are arguing that the quote is talking about her study specifically and not astronomy in general. Thanks for clarifying that you think her quote only applies to her stufy. Obviously wrong, however. She is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy.

"The biggest problem in astronomy is when a lady didn't know how to interpret NASA data in her study" - stack, probably

Yep, she is talking about the biggest problem in astronomy and how she and her team uses the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to get more precise. You do realize that her precision measurement studies are with Cepheid stars, the closest one being 887 light years away. It's not like she is fumbling around trying to figure out how far away the Moon is.

I'm glad you agree with her use of a NASA tool to get more precise at these cosmically long distances.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 04:03:25 AM
Anyone with a reasonable level of education should know that if an astronomer speaks of the biggest problem in astronomy that they are talking about astronomy in general, and not a study they conducted.

I know that you HAVE to argue something. But really, this is clearly a general statement of astronomy and not about a study. Speaking to the media about her study and the wishy washy theories of astronomy, a statement was made about astronomy in general.

No, because she used NASA data in her study, we do not have to accept NASA.

No, the "biggest problem in astronomy" is not solely about her study.

I suspect that you can see this, have a position that you need to defend, and are mostly trying to convince yourself that you are right with your "logic".
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: stack on February 20, 2020, 04:18:09 AM
Anyone with a reasonable level of education should know that if an astronomer speaks of the biggest problem in astronomy that they are talking about astronomy in general, and not a study they conducted.

I know that you HAVE to argue something. But really, this is clearly a general statement of astronomy and not about a study. Speaking to the media about her study and the wishy washy theories of astronomy, a statement was made about astronomy in general.

No, because she used NASA data in her study, we do not have to accept NASA.

No, the "biggest problem in astronomy" is not solely about her study.

The article where she is quoted is titled:

"The Size of the Universe May Be Inaccurate"

With the abstract:

"The uncertainty about its real dimensions stem from a changing view that astrophysicists and astronomers have on stars called Cepheid variables. These objects have until now been used to calculate distances in the Cosmos, but it would appear that this was a mistake."

Her study is specific to Cepheid stars, the ones mentioned as the crux of the study/article, 100's of light years away. She used data solely from a NASA Space Telescope to develop her findings.

But I'm glad you side with her that using a NASA telescope will help us gain better precision when it comes to these unbelievably vast cosmic distances.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2020, 09:39:05 AM
Can you please explain why space telescopes can't determine distance but that Earth telescopes can?

Because of the atmosphere.

Or, rather, that's what makes space telescopes give better, more accurate results. Otherwise why would they bother putting telescopes in space? It's very expensive so why bother? Because it gets them above the atmosphere with all the distortion which can result from light passing through it and thus yields better images and more accurate results.

The quote you cherry picked is clearly based on data obtained from a NASA space telescope if you look at it in the context which you dishonestly left out. Honestly, the way you are wriggling to try and deny that is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Appearance of the moon face
Post by: TissueOfLies on February 20, 2020, 03:04:33 PM
Wow, is this really what these forums are? endless posts on whether some scientist's innocuous quote meant one thing or another? Surely there are more interesting things to debate - like the fact that the wiki has a page om Foucault's pendulum yet totally glosses over the fact that the formulae that predict the movement of the bob can only work on a sphere, not on a rotating flat earth? What about the fact that if there really was a conspiracy, the number of engineers, scientists, pilots, astronauts, space related industries, academics, etc, etc, that would need to be involved makes it pretty much an impossibilty? When that question is answered with "compartmentalisation", is there any rigourous questioning of how that works?

One of the more convincing proofs of a globe model are southern hemisphere flights and antipodean flights, but from what I can see on this forum, not one satisfactory explanation is given for these - there are a number of threads on the topic, but every single one of them peters out into nothingness. For example, thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9794.0 it is explained that a bipolar model is the answer, but then when you look at the wiki page for the bipolar model, you get this gem: "The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched" So on a daily basis we travel from country to country, from town to town, more than a 100,000 flights A DAY, yet we manage this without even knowing where the continents are?! The mind truly boggles!

But carry on debating whether this scientist was talking about Earth-bound satellites or space satellites. You know that googling "Pauline Barmby email" brings up her email address quite easily? So you could ask her what she meant? Or is that too much common sense?