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 ... 404 405 [406] 407 408 ... 514  Next >
8101
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 26, 2017, 07:47:38 PM »
What you posted is not a "fact". A position from a sun calculator is not a "fact". That's called a prediction. There are no factual observations involved there. How old are you?

8102
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 26, 2017, 06:24:37 PM »
When you guys have any sort of evidence you can send me a PM. I am tired of responding to excuses and attempts at avoidence.

8103
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 26, 2017, 04:45:25 PM »
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

Quote from: 3DGeek
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information.   This is a very strange position to assume.

I see by the lengthy attempt at avoidance that you still have no evidence to present, only assertions that if you were to post such evidence that it will not be believed. If all of this evidence in favor of the Round Earth Theory is so plentiful and readily available, as we are constantly told, why not simply post it here rather than arguing that it is a waste of your time and that we should go out searching for it?

8104
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 26, 2017, 03:28:07 PM »
The standard for strong evidence is peer review. If there are multiple sources which tell us that the sun is doing something specific at the equator then that is strong evidence that this is the case. However, if you guys even posted a catalog of observations a single Spanish explorer made, that would be helpful to your cause. That is evidence, even if uncorroborated. Right now we have zero evidence. None. Instead of seeking to provide such evidence we hear ranting that you shouldn't bother because anything you post will not be believed, and still insisting that a calculation based on your model should blindly be believed without any affirming evidence.

If you simply post the evidence it will speak for itself no matter how much anyone would try to deny it.

8105
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 25, 2017, 07:50:28 PM »
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

8106
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 25, 2017, 06:11:22 PM »
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.

We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?

8107
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 25, 2017, 05:04:49 PM »
Interesting you would say "rise" and "set"  and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year.  But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM

Any issue with any of these fagcts?

Yes, I have an issue with using a calculator for theoretical observations rather than actual observations.

8108
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 25, 2017, 04:02:51 AM »
No, the sun does not rise directly east and set directly west. The direction the sun rises from ranges through the year from the North-East to the South-East, and the direction it sets ranges from North-West to South-West.

8109
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 25, 2017, 03:52:41 AM »
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.

And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no?  In the spot light model painted by the wiki.

Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.

8110
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 10:24:15 PM »
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."

"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes."

The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur.

lol that's literally exactly what it says.  like, almost word-for-word.  you keep quoting this bit, but you don't seem to understand that it supports my argument.  elp-2000 is an ephemeris.  this literally says "we used two ephemerides to predict eclipses: vsop87 and elp-2000."  not "we used saros cycles to predict these eclipses."

No. It LITERALLY says that "the coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87." It does not say that the eclipse predictions are based on VSOP87. It merely says that they are used in the eclipse predictions.

The coordinates of the sun are important because it tells us where we will be able to see the solar eclipse from. They are used in the map described further into the book.

Look at the quote you brought up:

Quote
The accuracy of the eclipse maps depends principally on two factors. The first is the rigorousness of the solar and lunar ephemerides used in the calculations (Sect. 1.3). The Moon’s close proximity to Earth coupled with its relatively low mass, results in orbital perturbations that make the Moon’s position far more difficult to predict compared to the Sun’s position.

See that? It says that accuracy of the eclipse maps are dependent of the accuracy of the solar and lunar ephemerides that tell us the coordinates of the sun and moon. That clearly suggests that the coordinates are used in the maps portion, which are used to tell us where we will be able to see the eclipses from.

The actual method of finding when the eclipse will occur is explained at length in the book as being the Saros cycle. The Saros cycle method is not being described across over half the pages of the book for mere educational or superfluous purposes. Why dedicate so much space to a method that is not being used?

8111
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 09:25:29 PM »
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.

And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?

8112
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 08:43:00 PM »
I have my doubts that the Hill-Brown Theory that was brought up earlier is even valid as a theory that accurately reflects the Round Earth model. According to this section in "Mask of the Sun: The Science, History and Forgotten Lore of Eclipses" we read that Hill started with the three body problem and had to make nearly 3000 adjustments to be able to predict anything.

    "Let it be said that all previous workers had started with what is known in Newtonian theory as the two-body problem (the Earth-Moon system), and then determined what slight adjustments were needed by considering the gravitational attraction  of the Sun, other planets, and the lunar tides. Hill started with the much more complicated three-body problem (the Earth-Moon-Sun system) then added adjustments. In total, he incorporated in his calculations nearly 3,000 such adjustments. And those calculation involved manipulating numbers to fifteen decimal places."

And here is a study done which claims that the using the Saros Cycle is "far better" than using the Hill-Brown Theory.

8113
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 08:02:50 PM »
you obviously just did a search for the word saros, found it, and moved on.  you keep making the same mistake of taking "here is some information about saros cycles" to mean "saros cycles are the only way to predict when and where an eclipse will occur."  the section you quote absolutely does not say that saros cycles "explain how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made."  literally none of the sources you or i have provided have said anything like that. 

Read section 4. It is very specific about how the Saros Cycle is used to make predictions. The Saros is talked about again and again over many pages in the entire book and you are telling us that the Saros had nothing to do with how the predictions were made and that the author is only bringing the Saros up for educational purposes.  ::)

The "modern digital computers" quote you had mentioned appears at the very end of the book:

Quote
"Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles are still of great value in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."

So if the 5 Millennium Catalog is based on these ephemerides, why is this whole book about the Saros Cycle method and not about this other method? Clearly, this ephemerides method was not the method used to create the catalog if it is only mentioning the possibility in the closing sentences of the book.

You should probably try to find information about this other prediction method mentioned, along with some observations that the predictions match reality, because that is not the standard method astronomers are using to predict the eclipse.

8114
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 07:57:22 PM »
Quote
the five millennium canon is exactly that.  check my last post.  i even pointed you to an open source python program that does this.

The Five Millennium Catalog PDF mentions Saros cycle all over the place. The word Saros appears 128 times in that document, and the document is very specific on how the Saros Cycle is used to make predictions, yet you are expecting us to believe that it does not use the Saros cycle and that, while Saros prediction method is explicitly described, it was done do for no reason, and that some other method which is not explicitly described is used instead to make the predictions. Ridiculous.

You have not shown us where an eclipse has been predicted with the "open source python program" that you had mentioned. Without experimental data why should we assume that it has ever predicted an eclipse?

8115
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 07:10:32 PM »
Quote
so, just to be clear, you're acknowledging that these predictions are based on tables of coordinates of the sun and moon as described by these two ephemerides, yes?  doesn't that kind of undercut your argument that they're based on saros cycles?

The Saros cycle just gives a time when to expect the next lunar eclipse to appear on the face of the moon. You will also need to know if you will be able to see the moon from your particular location. This is where the equations to find the coordinates of the moon come in.

The Lunar Eclipse is visible for anyone who can see the moon, and you will need to know whether the moon will be over your area at that time, not merely the time of the lunar eclipse.

The Solar Eclipse is visible for only a narrow path beneath the moon, and knowing the coordinates of the sun is necessary for knowing whether a solar eclipse will be visible in your area, not merely the time it will occur.

The coordinates of the sun and moon over the earth have nothing to do with computing the time of the lunar eclipse. It does not say that in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses PDF. The only points it brings up is a direct statement that the eclipses are predicted based on the Saros cycle in section 1.2.2 "Saros Series Number"

    "Each eclipse belongs to a Saros series (Sect. 4.2) using a numbering system first introduced by van den Bergh (1955)."

In 4.4 "Saros Series Statistics" we read:

    "Eclipses belonging to 204 different Saros series fall within the five millennium span of the Canon."


The document also states the coordinates for the sun and moon are used in section 1.3 "Solar and Lunar Coordinates":

    "The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory
    constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."

    "For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the
    Bureau des Longitudes."

The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur. The coordinates of the sun is used in the eclipse predictions, but the knowledge of coordinates is only useful because it will help create a map showing where the eclipses will be visible from, which is what the map sections of the document is about.

You seem to be saying that there is some special math not mentioned in the document where the time of the eclipse can be predicted without the use of the Saros cycle, despite the document stating that each eclipse is based on a Saros cycle series.

8116
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 05:51:29 PM »
hill's lunar theory addresses the latter point.  it's true, but some special cases are tractable and equations of motion can be derived.  the e-m-s system is close enough that semi-analytic solutions can be found and used to construct a table of positions for the moon over some period of time.

Show us an example where this or any other similar geometric theory has predicted the eclipse, because the "Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses" you had mentioned is based on a method created by an ancient society who believed that the earth was flat.

8117
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 05:15:48 PM »
Gary, the lunar ephemeris is a complicated equation only useful for telling us the coordinates of the moon. It does not tell us when the next lunar eclipse will occur.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html

Quote
The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983].

You are also WRONG that the "Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses" makes its solar eclipse predictions bases on a table of ephemeris predictions or any three-body problem solution. Here is an excerpt from a PDF which explains how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf

From Section 1: Maps and Predictions, Page 2:

Quote
1.2.2 Saros Series Number

Each eclipse belongs to a Saros series (Sect. 4.2) using a numbering system first introduced by van den Bergh (1955). This system has been expanded to include negative values from the past, as well as additional series in the future. The eclipses with an odd Saros number take place at the ascending node of the Moon’s orbit; those with an even Saros number take place at the descending node.

The Saros is a period of 223 synodic months, or approximately 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours. Eclipses separated by this period belong to the same Saros series and share very similar geometry and characteristics.

It says, quite clearly, that the eclipse predictions are based on the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is a method of pattern matching of past eclipses to predict when the next one will occur in the future. It has nothing to do with any geometric model of the earth.

8118
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 03:17:54 AM »
No - but other occasions when the sun is visible from both poles simultaneously DO occur every spring and summer.

Source?

Quote from: 3DGeek
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible.   At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?

This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet.   Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.

So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.

You want to take a shot at where that is?

Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.

The sun isn't over the equator on December 21st in Round Earth Theory. How embarrassing for you that you did not know that.

8119
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 03:03:05 AM »
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.

So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles?  How is that possible?

The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.

Agree.  But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world.  Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.

You are forgetting that during the time of the midnight sun in the Antarctic summer the Northern Hemiplane is having its longest winter nights.

8120
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:56:09 AM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.

But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???

That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.

If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think  you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)

The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.

If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 404 405 [406] 407 408 ... 514  Next >