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 ... 424  Next >
The earth isn't moving upwards at a set velocity. It is accelerating. More specifically, the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards into the things above it.

If you walk off of the edge of a chair and go into freefall it will hurt a lot less than if you walk off the edge of a skyscraper. In the skyscraper situation you are inert in space and the Earth has more time to build up velocity and smash into you.

Therefore, in a situation where the Earth is accelerating upwards if you have a broadcasting photon clock light source at the altitude of a chair and a photon clock at the altitude of a skyscraper, from the perspective of a detector on the floor, those photons would be perceived to be hitting it at different rates of reception. The time for the light source on the skyscraper will appear faster than the light source on the chair.

It is also what would happen between the floor and ceiling inside of a rocket ship that was accelerating upwards through space.

From p.8 of Cosmological Physics by John A. Peacock, PhD. we read the following:

  “ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”

“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

See the bolded. If you imagine yourself running into the line of photons it is apparent that the clock above you would run fast, because you are running into them. This is a physical explanation for how this works under the concept of upwards acceleration.

In contrast, the Round Earth Theory adopts a non-physical explanation for this which occurs in a hidden layer of reality, in which space is bending to cause the apparent speedup of time at different altitudes. In my opinion this is completely ad-hoc. Physics behaves as if the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards, but that can't work in RE, so they created this space-bending explanation in an untestable layer of reality which seeks to emulate the physics of upwards acceleration.

Time dilation is not actually caused by warped spacetime in the conventional model. This is a misconception. The explanation they use is that light travels at a set speed and it takes longer for a light ray to travel diagonally in a moving clock than when stationary.

How long does it take from my perspective for the light of the moving light clock to run from the upper to the lower mirror and back? In other words: How much time passes from my point of view between two successive ticks of the moving light clock? The answer is given by the following animation, which shows two identical light clocks. Instead of the counter, these light clocks have an indicator lamp that flashes briefly each time the light pulse arrives at the upper mirror. At the top of the picture you can see my own light clock, which is resting relative to me. Below, the moving light clock flies by at about 86.7 percent of the speed of light:

Light clocks, one resting, one moving

Apparently, from my point of view, the moving light clock moves much slower than my own identical light clock: Between two ticks of the light clock (corresponding to the indicator light blinking twice), twice as much time elapses for the moving clock as for my own. In other words: In the period between the first flashing of the indicator lamp of the moving clock (on the left side of the picture) and the second flashing (on the right side of the picture), the resting clock has flashed three times altogether!

Different lengths

What is the reason for this discrepancy? Why does the moving light clock blink more slowly?

The constancy of the speed of light is valid: Light moves with the constant speed of 300,000 kilometers per second. If I divide the distance the light has traveled on its way from the upper to the lower to the upper mirror by this speed value, I get the time the light needed for a round trip.

We have already made this calculation for the light clock at rest. There, from our point of view, the light runs vertically downwards and then vertically upwards:

The time needed for this is therefore twice the mirror distance divided by the speed of light. With the assumed mirror distance of 150,000 kilometers and the value 300,000 km/s for the speed of light, the running time is exactly one second.

The same explanation is used at the University of Pittsburgh:

Here's an animation that shows a light clock at rest and a second light clock that moves perpendicular to its rod. The light signal in the moving clock chases after the rod. To reach the other end, it covers more distance and, as a result, requires more time.

Here's the same animation in larger size in case you have a big screen.

If you watch the animation carefully, you will see that the moving light clock ticks at exactly half the speed of the resting clock. That is because the light signal of the moving clock has to cover twice the distance to go from one end of the rod to the other.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: December 06, 2021, 08:54:50 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: December 06, 2021, 08:08:36 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: December 04, 2021, 02:17:59 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: November 29, 2021, 08:02:07 PM »

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki
« on: November 28, 2021, 05:29:08 PM »
The margin of error for 1000 randomly selected people is only 3.2%. See the chart and links in the third and fourth posts of this thread.

Actually, I said nothing about lying. The problem is that you have no real world data.

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The bi-polar model has the same issue with not agreeing with how solar noon is observed as the curved longitude model.  On the bi-polar model, the sun is not at it's closest distance to each location on a given longitude line.  Thus, solar noon would not be seen at the same time at all locations along a given longitude line the way it is observed to.

Who observed this? So far you have been unable to cite a single observation and keep referring to an online calculator which also does not cite any observations.

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

This is also the reason given for the southern celestial rotation as seen by the observer:

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

As far as I can tell sites like suncalc are not a collection of observations, and isn't claimed as such. Certainly, it would take a worldwide effort of prolonged observations and there is no record of such an effort. In fact, we once emailed timeanddate on the source of their information and they claimed it was proprietary.

From my own experience, using the live dynamic phone sun locator apps have always been off.

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. I'll try...

Firstly, bending the lines of longitude like that hasn't fixed the problems I alluded to. The 45 degree circle centred on 0N 0W, for example, now lands on the eastern tip of Somalia. At 1200 UTC on next September's equinox in that place the sun will be around 35 degrees elevation, not 45.

The 90 degree circle still doesn't cover all of South America, so your model is saying it will be dark in places when it fact it will be very much daylight.

Next, in the process of trying to correct for some problems, you've introduced more problems. According to your EA model, you are suggesting that Polaris is 6000 miles overhead the North Pole. That means that everybody on a line of longitude running south from the North Pole should view Polaris directly north, at progressively lower elevations until the equator is reached. But now you've curved the lines, so people on, for example the 0 degree meridian won't see Polaris on the same heading. That is completely at odds with what we observe, what conventional science predicts, and what your initial explanation of EA would expect.

You need to back a horse here - you seem to be flitting from map to map as it suits. You can't have one map to explain one phenomenon and another for a different one - they all have to work the same way.

Actually the discrepancies you are attempting to point out with a circle are fallacious, as you have neglected to provide any real world observations of anything at all.

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the longitude lines were curved. The North Star is still over the North Pole and traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to the North Star would take you in a circle. Likewise, if you travel East ot West in relation to the magnetic field lines which eminate from the North you would make a similar circle on that map, as East and West on a compass are at a right angle to North. The direction of North and the makeup of the longitude lines on the surface have nothing to do with each other.

Someone on 0,0 degrees at the equator is on a point. That point does not suggest where the other points of longitude are or where North is. The makeup of the longitude lines is determined by the time of day and time zones, are points unique to the observer's position, and has nothing to do with North.

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Table of Contents and Outline
« on: November 20, 2021, 07:51:54 PM »
Some may have noticed that I have started thinking about this again. It took a while to circle around back to this. It took Rowbotham thirty years to come out with his final version, which I think is appropriate since a lot of this content is new and not built on a compilation or reiterations of earlier works, and would necessarily require thorough exploration, investigation, debate, and thought.

My goal at present will be to provide the commentary and philosophical and social arguments. We already have direct evidence and information about the Flat Earth and the models in the Wiki and that will be merged or rephrased into the work. I think this book should be split into three or four volumes. The first volume will focus on philosophical and social arguments. The second volume will focus on the evidence, which the reader can jump directly to if inclined. The third volume will focus on the Flat Earth models the community discusses.

The Wiki already contains much of the physical stuff, which will basically be merged or rephrased into the volumes two and three. I currently don't envision a section on history and would need someone like Dionysios to create a volume on the details of ancient Flat Earth history, so my current plan isn't to include much of that unless someone can contribute in that regard.

To complete the work a section on religion at the end seems oddly important, even though we don't really talk about that much. It's pretty important to the wider Flat Earth community though, and was important to previous FE societies. It can disclaim that not everyone connects FE to religion, but this is information on the subject. It can include an index on the flat earth quotes from scripture. Maybe it can include both the geocentric interpretation and the UA interpretation. It would be interesting to gather a few paragraphs of content from some of the bigger proponents on what Flat Earth means to them on religious grounds and include it into the book at the end.

Revised thoughts on a general outline:

Introduction (I would like to use this text)

Table of Contents
 -- + Instructions (Reader should jump around to their topic of interest)

Volume I - The Philosophy
 -- Prologue
 -- Reasons to Consider a Space Travel Conspiracy

Volume II - The Evidence (mostly taken or rephrased from the Wiki)

Volume III - The Models (mostly taken or rephrased from the Wiki)

Volume IV - Religion ?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: November 20, 2021, 04:55:51 AM »

A World Based on Lying

As we grow older we come to understand that our world is an onion with layers of lies, each more sinister than the last. On the surface the lies are indoctrinated and taught to be acceptable. We lie, we are told lies, and we are happy with lies.

When meeting a romantic interest a practice is to be a little less than honest with them by playing up a trait with flattery or by presenting yourself in a light somewhat inconsistent with reality. We have fake lawns, tell each other that we are “fine” even if we are not, and deny our own faults. We idealize those who tell us what we want to hear, even if it is disputable. We tell children outrageous like the existence of Santa Claus and find it to be perfectly palatable.

The entire concept of business is basically based on lying to customers. Buying a product for a low price and selling it for a higher price is fundamentally a lie; arguably unethical and not something you would do to a family member. Contrived “luxury” items, putting product on "sale", using models in advertisements to attract interest, uninvited pop-up advertising and on and on, are all arguably inherently unethical but accepted as standard practice.

Politicians use lies to garner public support and make promises that they know are unlikely to be fulfilled. They take money from business lobbying groups, promise the world, and once in power are often caught up in one scandal after the next. The banks lie with a fiat monetary system which involves lending out more money than they have in reserves. The news lies to you, framing events to drive you towards a certain editorial slant. In our pastime we will even entertain ourselves by deliberately watching lies to stimulate our emotions.

The Military is largely based on deception, and protecting those lies is considered to be honorable. Laws have been made to keep secrets secret, and allow the government to take down classified information and prevent news agencies from reporting it. We all know that if we post classified weapons plans onto the internet that we would face stringent penalties, risk our freedom, and the content won’t spread very far. State secrets are enforced by the rule of law, foreign cooperation, compliance of the media, and the bullet of a gun if necessary.

In a world of lies the US Government, which plays a lead role in NATO and the United Nations, is not above conducting secret wars (Pentagon Papers), protecting war criminals (Project Paperclip), and conducting medical experiments on you without your knowledge (MK-Ultra, Tuskegee), so what makes you think that they have qualms about lying to you about space travel? If the US wants it, if Russia wants it, if the entire human civilization wants it, wants tend to become reality.

Next: Pentagon Papers

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Introduction Page - comments wanted
« on: November 19, 2021, 05:53:49 AM »
I still think this text I contributed is a good introduction. Now that I've brought the Wiki to a mature state, which is what I was focused on for the past few years since this book started, I'm increasingly coming back to this book. Like the original ENAG I think half of the book needs to be commentary and half of it needs to be physical. The Wiki contains a lot on the physical aspects, but there is not much commentary. After the Introduction there should be a Prologue which continues to engage the reader.

The video was unsharable and I was fixing my comment, here's another video. NBC followed the jury bus and has been banned from the courtroom

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 424  Next >