[douglips]

I have really enjoyed my time here on the forum, and I especially appreciate Tom Bishop because he is one of the few people willing to have an intelligent discussion from the flat earth side. I ask questions, and he answers them or points me to other threads that are relevant, and I really appreciate that.

One of the things I try (perhaps I don't always succeed) to do is, when he posts a reason why my data isn't sufficient, I don't want to complain about it, I want to go away until I find something to further the discussion.

Here are the things that I can recall off the top of my head that I still owe Tom:

1. Angular velocity of objects.
There is the Boeing vs. Cessna discussion - Tom posits that a Cessna flying low overhead has a much bigger change in angular velocity (very low when far away, very high when right overhead) than a jet flying much higher does, and that this can explain why the sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour instead of moving slower near the horizon.
The round-earth/traditional geometry view would be that the angular velocity depends only on the distance from the observer to the object and the tangential component of the velocity vector, but Tom has suggested that at larger distances that the change in angular velocity is diminished or eliminated.

What I Owe Tom
I've been trying to come up with an observation to demonstrate one way or the other. Some ideas include video recording a jet flying overhead and calculating out angular velocity changes. I haven't done this yet, so I stopped contributing on that thread.

2. Horizons rise to eye level
The round earth model would claim that the horizon is slightly greater than 90 degrees from the azimuth, moreso at higher altitudes. The flat earth model claims "horizons always rise to eye level" and thus that the angle from vertical to the horizon is always exactly 90 degrees.

What I Owe Tom
I'd like to make a cheap observational tool out of a goniometer, and measure the angles to horizons in two opposite directions at sea level and also from a reasonably high mountain. Observations of a different angle at the higher elevation would be something I'd love to bring to Tom and see what he says. I don't have this yet, so I haven't continued the conversation.

3. Bishop experiment
Tom claims he can see the Santa Cruz beaches from Pacific Grove. I live near Santa Cruz and could perform similar observations.

What I Owe Tom
I'd like to observe from Santa Cruz to Pacific Grove from just above the beach (say, from the wharf in Santa Cruz) and from a higher point (say, the lookout point in Henry Cowell state park) and see what difference, if any, there is in being able to see the beaches or other low features on the land across the Monterey Bay.

There may be others but I'm not remembering them.

Round earthers, if you can think of a time when Tom gave you a reason you need to refine your data, please point me at it and I'll try to add it to this.

Please do not belittle or taunt anyone in this thread - I legitimately want to make a catalog of desired data, and name calling and insults won't help from either side.

[Tom Haws]

At the moment I am feeling pretty fed up with the antics of Tom and junker after lurking a bit reading various threads instead of participating in the discussion. But one thing I do think that we owe Tom is to understand by example what he wants to see. He went to the beach, made an observation, and called it The Bishop Experiment. I now hope I am a little closer to understanding what he wants in the way of observations. He wants me to submit Tom Haws experiments. Here are two I owe Tom:

Sun/Moon angle of view:

I need to measure the angle of view taken by the sun and moon at various inclinations and record/report my results.

Rising and setting of sun and moon:

I need to record my observations of what happens to the sun and moon when they rise and set and whether I can see double rises and sets by ascending/descending hills/buildings.

[devils advocate]

I recall that Tom wants proof that parallel lines will continue for infinity without ever meeting.

[ThoraxDrew]

I recall that Tom wants proof that parallel lines will continue for infinity without ever meeting.

Parallel:
adjective
1.
extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging:
Geometry.
2. (of straight lines) lying in the same plane but never meeting no matter how far extended.

[devils advocate]

I recall that Tom wants proof that parallel lines will continue for infinity without ever meeting.

Parallel:
adjective
1.
extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging:
Geometry.
2. (of straight lines) lying in the same plane but never meeting no matter how far extended

Absolutely, but like I said Tom actually wants proof that it's true. A large part of his belief in flat earth depends on there being some ambiguity with perspective.

[Tom Haws]

Absolutely, but like I said Tom actually wants proof that it's true. A large part of his belief in flat earth depends on there being some ambiguity with perspective.

I guess "owe" is relative or debatable, since in the case of perspective, he's totally misusing the term and the concept. It's nothing but an artistic device, not a physical theory.

[devils advocate]

in the case of perspective, he's totally misusing the term and the concept. It's nothing but an artistic device, not a physical theory.

Ah but Tom has created his OWN meaning of the term/concept thus not misused the one the rest of the world uses as he doesn't claim that his version of the word corresponds with anybody else's understanding. Like his particular version of evidence for example. These are all subjective terms after all.

[AATW]

I recall that Tom wants proof that parallel lines will continue for infinity without ever meeting.

Parallel:
adjective
1.
extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging:
Geometry.
2. (of straight lines) lying in the same plane but never meeting no matter how far extended

Absolutely, but like I said Tom actually wants proof that it's true. A large part of his belief in flat earth depends on there being some ambiguity with perspective.

Probably stating the obvious here but that's like asking for proof that a square has 4 equal sides.
That is the definition of what a square is. The definition of parallel lines is ones which don't meet (well, "meet at infinity" is the textbook definition, I believe).
If he thinks he can prove they do meet then I'd like to see his explanation.