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 ... 416 417 [418] 419 420 ... 491  Next >
8341
Flat Earth Community / Merely mistaken
« on: September 25, 2016, 02:46:26 AM »
The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe. This mistake took root in Ancient Greece when it was decided that the earth was a globe based on three casual observations -- the sinking ship effect, the observation that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and the observation that Polaris descends as you travel southward (Later to be addressed as fallacy in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham). These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.

Astronomy

Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely. A Chemist is expected to create controlled tests to determine a truth. But Stephen Hawking gets away with building theory upon theory, a house of cards model of the universe which "stands on the shoulders of giants". Hawking performs zero experimentation on the universe before coming up with a theory like the metric expansion of space.

Historic parallax observations which compute the sun to be millions of miles distant on a Round Earth also say that it is thousands of miles distant under the interpretation of a flat one. The theory of gravity doesn't seem to work at large distances in space, causing the necessity for elaborate Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories which comprise 98% of the universe. The lunar eclipse and other celestial events are predicted by the analyzing patterns of past observations -- the same way the Ancient Babylonians, a Flat Earth society, predicted them.

Geodesy

Geodesists are said to study the shape of the earth, but if one looks at their journals they will find that they do nothing but look at certain phenomena and interpret how it works on a Round Earth. The levels of g are slightly different at different locations, so the Geodesist declares that the earth is not perfectly round. Not really the level of inquiry we are looking for here.

Piloting

Pilots fly on preplanned routes to their location and do not require the earth to be any shape. There is not enough data from airline flights to fully map the earth by analyzing aircraft logs, as no one really goes the "long way" around the earth, for obvious reasons, and a Flat Earth map can take many configurations to explain the limited results.

Satellite Communication Companies

Satellite communication companies aren't in the business of putting satellites into orbit. Do you think Direct TV has launch capabilities and access to restricted orbital rocket technologies which are 98% similar to an ICBM? They rely on the government putting up communication satellites for them and giving them a way to feed in their signal.

NASA

NASA is mistaken as to the earth's shape as well. There is a conspiracy, but it is not to hide the shape of the earth. NASA is not running a real space agency, so they wouldn't know what shape the earth truly takes. Since sustained space travel is not possible, there was a necessity to fake it. The earth is depicted as a globe in their media because that's what everyone expected to see at the time of NASA's creation.

The motivation is simple. NASA must exist for reasons of national security. Having the ability to launch rockets into orbit also means the ability to put weapons into orbit and obliterate any country at the push of a button. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to sustain America's military domination of space.

Following WWII the race to space lasted for 12 years, with one infamous failure and rocket disaster after another. Don't you think it's a coincidence that within three months of the USSR claiming to have launched Sputnik into orbit, the US claimed to put a satellite into orbit as well?

8342
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 25, 2016, 12:20:05 AM »
Where is the evidence for this fact? Solely in your head?

8343
Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« on: September 25, 2016, 12:16:43 AM »
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.


8344
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 11:49:16 PM »
How is it off topic?

I am asking about predicting the angle stars appear to the observer.  This thread is talking about predicting the angle of the nearest star to us, the Sun.

Your claim the math does not work or is unreliable.  Celestial navigation being used to get a fix using math suggest you are wrong about distance causing the math to fail.

Your last post on the subject of celestial navigation was only partially correct. You can get a line of position without using math.  To get a fix math is involved.  I really suggest you look into how to navigate and finding your position using the stars.  It will give you an insight on the distances of where math still works. Since long before GPS, LORAN and computers people figured out using the math you claim is wrong to determine their position anywhere on Earth as long as they could see the stars and horizon. (When someone figured out they could use an artificial horizon they only needed to see the stars)

You're going to have to show us an example of what you mean.

yo tom: do you think this photo is of a woman who is taller than the leaning tower of pisa?  why or why not?



According to our perspective the woman is taller.

No, two lines angled towards each other WILL meet. The angle is not "just too small that you can't see it and it actually continues forever". That is not possible. We have two lines angled towards each other. Think about it. What you are describing is impossible. The only way for the lines to continue forever without meeting is if they appeared as PARALLEL lines.

Ok, let's say an object is travelling along one of these lines. For simplicity's sake, let's say that these lines make a right angle with each other.

A ---------- B
|
|
|
C

Let's say Bob is travelling from B to A. There are 10 dashes between A and B. Let's say Bob is travelling at a rate of 10/t2 dashes per second. t is the time in seconds and starts at 1. How long before Bob intersects the line AC?

Obligatory stop dodging the question:

"take the distance between the tracks and the angle of their progression" -- Um... how do I take a distance between an object and an angle?
"determine where they would intersect in the distance" -- How? Is there a special Bishop equation that I can use?
"Calculate based on what we and experience" -- Ok. Great. How do I perform this calculation?

I don't know what you are getting at, and I don't have an equation for you. I was explaining the method of calculation. You would calculate based on what we see and experience -- angled lines clearly approaching each other to a point in the distance, not on what is theorized. Two lines angled towards each other will clearly meet at some point. They do not go on and on for infinity.

8345
Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« on: September 24, 2016, 10:13:14 PM »
If you were really interested in the shape of the earth measuring dish angles and the path of the sun would be something to easily carry out.  A reluctance to do this must show you are not serious in your belief.

Stop being lazy and follow through with the experiment you proposed. I'm not going to contribute to this discussion for you.

8346
Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« on: September 24, 2016, 07:54:30 PM »
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.

You not only need to look at what proves you right, but what proves you wrong.  If you do not you can never advance your model or refine it. 

The reason you or another FE should do it is it will allow you to refine a FE model.  Something like the upper limit man and machine can go.

Myself and other RE's accept the world is round.  We believe that Kepler's and Newton's Laws are right so have no need or desire to do this.  I actually thought about doing it and may some day. I also think about how the results will be just dismissed by FE's. 

If I do do it it will not be for someone like you, but a young person who may have wondered by here, has little to no understanding of the subject matters. It will be in the hope that they to do not end up going down the same path as anyone truly believing the Earth is flat.

I don't go around telling you that I have an idea for an experiment, but I don't want to bother and that you should do it. It's not even a good one. I have better things to do than gather some information which can be interpreted in any number of ways with multiple technologies, nothing being proven in the end either way.

8347
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 07:43:18 PM »
Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Quote
If two train tracks are laid out in front of you at an angle pointing towards each other, then obviously, two lines oriented in that position that will intersect at some point. Only parallel lines can continue into infinity and never intersect.

Yes, we agree on this. Parallel lines never intersect. Brilliant deduction Sherlock.

The type of math you are using says that the train tracks should approach each other but NEVER meet.

But from what we see and experience the tracks are angled toward each other in a way that they MUST meet.

So what's right? Are our experiences correct, or is a theoretical calculation which takes place outside of the universe and is missing a dimension correct?

We have been through this already. Stop arguing in a circle.

Yes, parallel lines are angled towards each other from our perspective.
No, they will never actually meet each other.
Yes, it appears that they meet each other because the angle between them becomes too small for our eyes to distinguish. Using a telescope can extend the range that they appear to not touch at, obviously.
Yes, we can calculate exactly what this angle is using trigonometry, as shown previously on this thread.
Yes, the "out of this universe" diagram can correctly portray this angle, as shown previously on this thread.
No, the math doesn't predict an infinity. It predicts that they will never touch, because they can never reach infinity.
Yes, this math can be demonstrated to work at small, testable scales.
No, you have no evidence that it magically stops working at larger scales, other than blind faith in your model.

Ok, now that I have brought us back full circle, can you stop dodging the question, and just answer how you think this stuff can be calculated, if the math is indeed wrong?

"take the distance between the tracks and the angle of their progression" -- Um... how do I take a distance between an object and an angle?
"determine where they would intersect in the distance" -- How? Is there a special Bishop equation that I can use?
"Calculate based on what we and experience" -- Ok. Great. How do I perform this calculation?

No, two lines angled towards each other WILL meet. The angle is not "just too small that you can't see it and it actually continues forever". That is not possible. We have two lines angled towards each other. Think about it. What you are describing is impossible. The only way for the lines to continue forever without meeting is if they appeared as PARALLEL lines.

8348
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 07:38:12 PM »
No, it does not. It predicts that two objects that are not touching will always have a non-zero angular diameter between them. It does not predict anything to be at infinity.

It predicts that the objects will continue to forever approach the horizon, but never touch it.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
If the sun seems to touch the horizon then it does.
If an object seems to be hidden behind the horizon then it is.

Am I determining the truth correctly now?

Sure, reality is always a good barometer of truth. The train tracks meet on the horizon due to perspective, so it makes sense that the sun can meet the horizon due to perspective as well. Also, as I mentioned on page 1, it is part of Earth Not a Globe that the sinking effect is explained by hiding behind things on the horizon. So far, so good.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian
Quote
If two train tracks are laid out in front of you at an angle pointing towards each other, then obviously, two lines oriented in that position that will intersect at some point. Only parallel lines can continue into infinity and never intersect.

Yes, we agree on this. Parallel lines never intersect. Brilliant deduction Sherlock.

The type of math you are using says that the train tracks should approach each other but NEVER meet.

But from what we see and experience the tracks are angled toward each other in a way that they MUST meet.

So what's right? Are our experiences correct, or is a theoretical calculation which takes place outside of the universe and is missing a dimension correct?

8349
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 07:05:38 PM »
How about answer how celestial navigation can be used to get a fix?

The method used predicts what angle certain stars should appear to an observer at a location at a certain time. 

This is  real world application that was and is(much rarely now) with accurate and reliable results.  This suggest that the math you say fails at those distances does work at them.

If celestial navigation works what changes when predicting what angle the Sun should appear to a person?

I would prefer to keep these threads on topic.

8350
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 06:50:55 PM »
What?? You are going to have to be more specific. Stop being vague. Are you still trying to drag Zeno's Paradox into this somehow?

Please follow the thread. The math claims that it is impossible for an overhead body to reach the place where the perspective lines intersect. It predicts that the horizon would be an infinite distance away on a plane. This has not been demonstrated.

Quote
Please stop dodging the question. I would like to re-emphasize Woody's question:

At what distance does the math fail? Why does it fail? In what way, specifically, does it fail? What is the correct way to calculate the angle?

The correct way to determine the truth is by taking our que from the real world. If train tracks seem to intersect then they do, according to our present perception. If two train tracks are laid out in front of you are at angles pointing towards each other, then obviously, two lines oriented in that position that will intersect at some point. Only parallel lines can continue into infinity and never intersect.

To calculate where they intersect take the distance between the tracks and the angle of their progression and determine where they would meet in the distance. Calculate based on what we experience, not on some theoretical dimension outside of the universe.

8351
Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« on: September 24, 2016, 05:50:16 PM »
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.

8352
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 05:37:43 PM »
I have seen this conversation with Tom play out before.

It always ended with Tom claiming something along the lines at some unspecified distance math stops working.

The math actually claims that something infinite happens at long distances. This has not been demonstrated to be true. You are expecting us to place our faith in the intellectual prowess of a group of people who believed that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

8353
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 24, 2016, 05:32:43 PM »
And if you dig deep enough eventually the earth will give way and you will fall into the abyss!

We will need actual evidence to demonstrate those suppositions, I am afraid.

8354
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 05:26:32 PM »
True enough, but it is important to know exactly how and when a model stops being useful. We know exactly how inaccurate Newtonian physics is at any given scale. We know why it is inaccurate at that scale. On the other hand, you have no notion of why geometry stops working. You have no notion of at what scale geometry stops working. All you know is that it must stop working or else your model is wrong. You are just using this as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts your model.

In your example, you did not demonstrate the mathematical infinities of perspective. How is it supposed to prove the subject-matter true?

Will one trigonometric equation prove the rest of trigonometry true? I think not.

8355
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:57:18 PM »
Well I'm not currently at the equator, so I am not going to go outside and take a picture for you. However, I have been to the equator and can affirm that it is 100% true. Millions of people around the world can verify this. You can verify this yourself by going to the equator. Anywhere on the equator that isn't surrounded by mountains will do.

In another thread you blamed me for lack of research... oh the irony.

Really, you thought to perform this experiment before the subject came up in this thread?

8356
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:54:16 PM »
You must test long distance perspective, not something else entirely.

Ah, and here we get to the crux of your argument. So your argument is this:

"Yes, this process works for any relatively short, easily testable distance. No, there is no reason to believe it stops working at long distances. However, if the process does work at long distances, then my model would be proved false. Therefore, I am going to assume it stops working at long distances, despite the lack of evidence."

Is this correct? Am I missing something?

Of course things work differently at different scales. We have an entire different branch of physics for the very small and the very large. Any model is nothing more than an approximation for reality within a limited range.

8357
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:48:02 PM »
And if we are at the equator, both of them are visible at the same time at the horizon. No matter where you are on the equator, they are in exact opposite directions from one another. Based on your bipolar model, we would not expect this to happen.

You don't have any evidence for that.

8358
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:40:50 PM »
You must test long distance perspective, not something else entirely.

8359
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:38:08 PM »
I don't see a problem with the bi-polar model. The South Celestial pole is always in one spot.

*sigh*

In the bipolar model, depending on where you are, the north celestial pole is not directly 180 degrees away from the south celestial pole.
In reality, no matter where you are, the north celestial pole is directly 180 degrees away from the south celestial pole.

The magnetic field lines are curved in the Bi-Polar model, making the direction of North and South relative to the position of the field lines. If you follow the field lines North or South anywhere on the map you will eventually reach the North or South poles.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the magnetic north or south poles. I am referring to the celestial poles.

The celestial poles are located near the magnetic poles. We can't see the Southern celestial pole from the Northern Hemiplane. To get to it we follow our compass South, which will take us to the Southern Hemiplane from wherever we are in the North.

8360
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:22:53 PM »
Test what, that there aren't any hidden infinite distances as predicted by the ancients? That sounds more like a positive claim that you have to prove to support your claim.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 416 417 [418] 419 420 ... 491  Next >