481

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 06, 2018, 03:16:43 PM »

What data do you imagine might follow from a hypothetical experiment? You do understand what these words mean, yes?

Yes. You want us to explain the results of an experiment that happened in your head.

If you have nothing to actually contribute... we know where this thread is going to end up.

No, Thomas. A theory that describes reality means that it is a theory that can predict what will happen...in reality. I used to live in San Francisco, where I remember seeing a crescent moon one night. What does your theory predict would been seen in the other following locations that I specified? This IS the forum for FET, yes? Where we investigate FET?

This is what scientists do, Thomas. They continuously apply their model to different scenarios to test it.

The more you hide from actually attempting to test your model, the less anyone will ever believe it to be true.

Scientists who believe in their models do not hide like this. It is evident that you do not believe in the FET.

482

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 05, 2018, 05:28:28 AM »

That is not my problem, Thomas. You have proposed a FET as valid. The burden on proof lies with you. I have proposed a scenario, and asked for an explanation in the FE model.

Burden of proof to explain what? You provided no data for the result of your hypothetical experiment would be.

"Burden of proof to explain what?"

Oh dear, you are completely clueless.

"You provided no data for the result of your hypothetical experiment would be."

What data do you imagine might follow from a hypothetical experiment? You do understand what these words mean, yes?

No wonder scientists do not take you seriously.

483

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 05, 2018, 04:10:11 AM »

What is there that we need to answer for? You asked "how is it possible for people to take a picture of the moon from different locations" without showing what the result is from such an experiment, or even really explaining what you think the expected result will be.

That is not my problem, Thomas. You have proposed a FET as valid. The burden on proof lies with you. I have proposed a scenario, and asked for an explanation in the FE model. You have done everything to avoid answering, which means you either a) don't know, or b) cannot figure it out.

What do YOU think these four individuals will photograph? Suppose the following initial conditions: the individual in San Francisco photographs a crescent moon.

Now FET gets to predict what kind of moon the other three would photograph. What does it predict, Thomas? Show us your theory. Stop talking about it, avoiding it, changing topics, failing to answer. Stop doing the behaviors of every single charlatan out there and start behaving like a scientist.

Tell me what FET predicts and why.

You do not get to know the actual answer before you predict it. That is not how science works. You want me to help you by feeding you data and answers. Tough luck. Be a man and deliver.

484

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 05, 2018, 03:38:26 AM »

Unless you have data for exactly what is seen of the crescent moon and its orientation from various points on earth simultaneously, I don't see that there is anything that needs to be explained.

Here is one for you:

Get a shovel and start digging. You fall out the other side and fall to your death.

How do you explain that?

How disappointing and juvenile. So FET cannot answer this question. A shame, I had many others which were more interesting.

A scientist would never behave with such unfledged diction. If a scientist was given a scenario to test their theory, they would JUMP at the chance to do so. For if they succeeded, then they would have a piece of evidence to add to their collection. But if they failed, then it may indicate their theory must be modified.

You are not interested in such things. You respond to challenges like a child, defiantly holding on to a reality which is fleeing from you.

If you ever decide to approach this challenge with poise and integrity, then I will be here.

Waiting.

485

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?

« on: August 05, 2018, 03:31:53 AM »

In Earth Not a Globe the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere/atmoplane.

An illustration of the projection from the above work:



If the sun is a projection upon the atmosphere, might that provide some insight to how the sun sets?

What happens to the view in the far distance? The atmosphere eventually builds up to a point where you cannot see past. One cannot see for infinity. The atmosphere is comprised of opaque atoms and molecules, and is not perfectly transparent.

Here is a picture Bobby provided, showing that the opacity of the atmosphere changes over time, and can change the height of the horizon line.


(Click for Bigger)

In the distance the horizon eventually meets the thick atmosphere. Might the projection of the sun project onto that atmosphere in the distance, and eventually pass over the head of the observer?

So the opacity of the atmosphere is a known quantity, and permits viewing (in clear conditions) of about 50 miles. There is some give and take, it depends on temperature and density and particulates, etc. But 50 miles is a good conservative value easily realizable in conditions all over the Earth.

So if I'm on the beach, how come I can't see ships that are 50 miles at sea, Thomas? How come I can only see them when they come to about 3 miles or so?

486

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 05, 2018, 03:23:20 AM »

I am asking for a detailed picture, along with any supporting graphs, equations, and explanations needed, which can demonstrate how the following situation can be possible according to Rowbotham's claims.

The following four individuals can, simultaneously, take pictures of a crescent moon at night and share it online. The individuals took the pictures from the following locations:

San Francisco, California
Manhattan, New York
Lima, Peru
Buenos Aires, Argentina

This is how four individuals in SF, NYC, Lima, and Buenos Aries can do what you described:

Step 1: Get a job and make some money
Step 2: Use said money that you made to buy a camera, a computer, and internet service
Step 3: Take a picture of the crescent moon
Step 4: Upload it online

Here is the equation for that:

Consumer Goods and Services = Labor + Good Work Ethic + Time

Are there any further questions?

Just one: how about you take your own theory seriously? If you cannot demonstrate how this easy scenario can be explained in FE theory, then you clearly know that FET is false.

I am giving you an opportunity here, Thomas. I am a published physicist. If you can demonstrate support of FET through the same rigorous analysis we use then I will promote your work. And that is a promise.

This is your chance, Thomas.

We are starting off with an easy one: a crescent moon viewed from multiple locations on your FE. Show how this is possible. Both moon and sun sit at 3000 miles above the plane of the FE.

If you cannot/will not do this, if all you can muster is a very unfunny joke and dismissal, then the self-acclaimed Tom Bishop has been defeated before ever moving a single pawn.

The pancake is in your court.

487

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 05, 2018, 03:00:57 AM »

What are you talking about? What situation? What data?

I really do not understand what you don't understand. The situation is the one I detailed above. Is this situation possible in the FE model? If so, then please demonstrate it.

Data? Did you read my post, or are you deliberately being obtuse?

488

Flat Earth Theory / The Crescent Moon

« on: August 04, 2018, 09:25:15 PM »

This is a challenge for any FE'er who wishes to reply, but specifically for Tom Bishop.

I am asking for a detailed picture, along with any supporting graphs, equations, and explanations needed, which can demonstrate how the following situation can be possible according to Rowbotham's claims.

The following four individuals can, simultaneously, take pictures of a crescent moon at night and share it online. The individuals took the pictures from the following locations:

San Francisco, California
Manhattan, New York
Lima, Peru
Buenos Aires, Argentina

489

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 04, 2018, 09:07:06 PM »

Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things.

I have no doubt that you do.

To ICanScienceThat:

If it doesn't matter what the distance to the bodies are or the geometry of the Round Earth Theory is in the equations then it may as well be a Flat Earth model. Rowbotham said that the celestial bodies were projected onto the amtoplane in Earth Not a Globe.

A projection onto a plane above the head of the observer is already built into our model. Since the math works regardless of the actual distance to the celestial bodies, and our model predicts such a projection, unlike the Round Earth model, did you just provide a Flat Earth model?

So I am trying to make sense of your reply, but it is not really intelligible from a scientific point of view. Rowbotham can say whatever he wants, but he provides no solid, reproducible evidence for such claims.

Your projection idea easily fails a basic test of optics and shadows that the greeks could accomplish thousands of years ago. Did you know that?

Yes, that's right, your theory is over 2000 years behind modern thought, and has about as much predictive power as Scientology.

Your model does not predict a projection, as that facet is built into the model a priori.

Even though PG exists mathematically it does not describe our Universe. THAT is the empirical conclusion we have arrived at. Very easy tests can demonstrate this -- like GPS.

I have a question for you, Thomas. How much money do earn by promoting this FE business?

490

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 04, 2018, 02:00:40 AM »

There exist non-Euclidean geometries that do not use Euclid's postulates.

Consider Projective Geometry. It is a form of geometry that was created empirically, rather than based on a hypothetical  concept of a perfect universe. The perspective lines are finite, and meet in the distance. It is used in computer graphics and other areas.

There are a large number of other finite geometries as well, a number of which reject Elucid's parallel line postulate entirely.

To say for certain what should or should not happen in the distance would require thorough study of the world and how perspective behaves at various distances. Since the Ancient Greeks could not provide evidence for their model, that model can be discarded.

Lol, but then so can yours. Just about every claim you write is made without evidence.

There is more evidence for geometries that obey well-defined metrics than projective geometries. Don't get me wrong, PG is a perfectly fine mathematical inquiry. The issue is whether it adheres to the geometry of space-time.

Hint, hint: it does not.

You cannot define a 4-vector metric that explains, for example, GPS with PG. Go ahead. Start googling. I'll wait...

Unfortunately for you, Tom, I actually now about these things. So your nonsense won't hold water with me.

How sad for you.