[QED]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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

[QED]

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?

[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

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 moon simultaneously
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?

[QED]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

Unless you have data for exactly what is seen of the 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 get to the other side of the earth and fall to your death.

How do you explain that?

[QED]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[QED]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[QED]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

Yet, in the "full moon impossible" thread, you're repeatedly describing a variation on the ball-moon experiment which exists only in your head. No?

Haven't seen any photos of you doing this yet.

[Tumeni]

Tom, here's a different, and far cheaper way;

Go to mooncalc.org

Pick a date and time in the future, for a location of your choice. Note carefully the graphic within mooncalc which shows you what the Moon will look like on that date and at that time. Note how the various elements within the mooncalc screen show you all the data about that Moon, in addition to showing you when sunrise and sunset occur, when the Moon will be beyond your horizon, where it will rise, where it will set. You can slide your cursor along the time bar at the top of the screen, and see how the Moon will vary on that day.

You could perhaps note a few times on one date on which to predict what the Moon will look like then.

All you need do on the appointed day is look up.

Optionally, perhaps you could save some screenshots of the prediction according to mooncalc and, if the Moon looks radically different from that predicted, share photos that you take of it on the day?

[Tom Bishop]

We've looked at those calculators. They are based on patterns of the moon's presumed movement and occurrences. They even still use Ptolmy's famous lunar perturbations from his pattern-predicting methods used in his geocentric earth calculations.

If you want to compare the results from various points on earth, be my guest. Don't ask me to do your experiments for you, and I won't ask you to do my experiments for me.

[Tumeni]

We've looked at those calculators. They are based on patterns of the moon's presumed movement and occurrences. They even still use Ptolmy's famous lunar perturbations from his pattern-predicting methods used in his geocentric earth calculations.

If you want to compare the results from various points on earth, be my guest. I'm not going to do your experiments for you.

If the presumption matches exactly the observation on your chosen date, it no longer is a presumption, surely?

If multiple presumptions come true, how many presumptions do you need before accepting the presumptions as correct? By all means, show us where the presumptions go wrong, if you can.

I'm not suggesting different points. You're not interested in what others do at their points, so I suggest you do it for yours.

[Tom Bishop]

You're not interested in what others do at their points, so I suggest you do it for yours.

You are the one with the bigger interest here. I will study what I want to study and you can study what you want to study, and neither of us will demand that the other does work for the other. Does that sound agreeable?

[Tumeni]

.... neither of us will demand that the other does work for the other. Does that sound agreeable?

Which bit of   "I suggest...", or  "Here's a way (that you could) ..."  do you interpret as a 'demand' ?

[QED]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

What reality? Test against what? You have not posted any data for what will be seen.