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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 430  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 03, 2022, 02:01:19 AM »
These questions were already asked and answered. Go back and read them and address the responses.

Quote from: stack
You would have to move the camera, aka, reposition the frame, throughout the night.

Actually repositioning can be helped by software. The area just needs to be captured.

Quote from: stack
The guy with the 4+ hour unguided timelapse said (like I cited before), "In the first sequence from January 18 the equatorial mount, an Astro-Physics Mach1, is left to track on its own and is unguided." For 4+ ours and the nebula didn't go out of frame. So obviously is can be done for long durations, especially with a $10k EQ mount.

An equatorial mount might help get the camera in the general area, but doesn't guarantee that the stars will be exactly in the same place, or didn't zig zag around. This is likely why he opted for a contrived way of making the video in software rather than simply doing a single long video from the mount itself. A far simpler methodology would just be to take the video from the mount.

Again, the actual methodology used in this is completely different than what you are suggesting demonstrates is possible.

Quote from: stack
If no one knows, why did you say: "That's not taken through a telescope, which was claimed by the poster was possible." What impact would a telescope versus a camera have on an EQ mount?

The impact to the discussion is that the poster claimed that stars would be stable in telescopic equatorial mounts and we received an unrelated example which did not involve telescopes and which did not take a video from the mount and was pasted together in software.

The person is a big vague about what exactly he did in the software, but the matter is tainted by the methodology. Part of the purpose of the software was obviously to fix errors.

Quote from: stack
And sure, it can be done with any camera. But not with any lens. There's no way to keep a star in frame over 4+ hours without an EQ mount.

Incorrect. There is a distinct nebula in the frame, for example. If you were to take a series of photos of that area around the nebula at different times of the night you could put your images together in software and capture the stars around that area. No equatorial mount required.

Quote from: stack
After 15 or so seconds, without an EQ mount, you'll start to get trails and/or field rotation. This guy's exposures were 30 seconds.

Unguided equatorial mounts are capable of very short exposures, as indicated by my original sources. This falls in line with what was claimed.

The problem is that your example goes on to put the images together in software for his final product rather than recording the entire video from the mount. This is not good evidence that you can buy a mount and keep the stars static all night long through a telescope as was claimed by the poster of this thread, or even do this with only a camera on an unguided equatorial mount without all the software adjustments and stacking.

Quote from: stack
What does a telescope lens versus a camera lens have to do with an EQ mount?

Who knows? I was not the one who introduced that absurdity into the thread.

Did I say that a wide angle lens was required? No, I did not. Please refrain from fibbing in these discussions. It was clearly used it as an example, and the word required was not mentioned anywhere.

It can be done with any camera. Take a picture of a set of stars a few times over the night and then you can put the images together in software. You don't even need an equatorial mount.

Obviously you must know this has nothing to do with a wide angle lens and are using a tactic of posting frivolities and delaying discussing the concept, to avoid talking about the fact that the person in the link does not actually record a video directly from the mount and goes on at length to discuss extensive use of special software editing and timelapse stacking software to make a software adjusted video from a series of images.

Quote from: Kangaroony
the fact that he's "never seen" something himself is a weak argument.

Yeah, lets all just go ahead and assume that there are cameras with equally powerful lenses to astronomical telescopes based on an internet comment on a forum.

What a disgusting miscarriage of an argument that we should assume this without having seen it because to say otherwise is a "weak argument". In fact, one person claiming this without evidence and another person following up to defend it with incredulity when challenged is one of the weakest arguments possible.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 11:00:31 PM »
Quote from: stack
You started out with "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." Well, it's been shown that obviously, they do. Quite often in fact.

Incorrect. They do not. The same flight times and flight routes are not possible for the return flight. There is a time and a path difference.

If a taxi goes directly through a city to take me to my destination and on the return trip the taxi wants to take me on a scenic route which goes around a city it is most certainly not the same route.

Quote from: stack
Well, your site is irrelevant because there are no non-stops between LCY and JFK currently.

A lot of flights are shut down right now due to Covid. This is irrelevant. Airliners have reported nine and a half hours.

Quote from: stack
Sure, planes are reliant on weather

Which inserts additional variables and requires the analyses in these discussions to know the properties of the winds.

Quote from: stack
How would a telescope versus a camera with an equally powerful lens be different on the same EQ mount?

I've never seen a camera with an equally powerful lens as an astronomical telescope. Who knew that telescope manufacturers were unnecessarily making their telescopes so large when they could pack it down into a small package and get equal results, as indicated by someone's claim on an internet forum. ::)

Quote from: stack
I think you missed a bit, he used:

William Optics RedCat astrograph at f/5 with a 250mm focal length. The field of view is 8° by 5.5°. That's referred to as a "telephoto" lens, opposite of a "wide-angle lens" as you suggest, which would be 50mm or lower. And with that FOV his target would be out of frame right quick. Instead, he was able to keep the target in frame for 4+ hours, unguided.

And if you had kept reading you would have found that he used a series of images and special time-lapse stacking software to put them together.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 09:33:43 PM »
Quote from: stack
Yeah, we know the jestream makes east to west flights faster. So what?

Much longer? Looks about on average to be about an hour, hour and half difference - Is that "Much longer"?:

If you found recent flights between London and NYC taking under 7 hours, it is just more evidence that the particular nature of the winds and nature of the weather is to blame. The hour difference from the main jet stream route that you found is also evidence that the return winds can be going almost as fast as the main jet stream.

It is easy to find that airliners have reported the duration from London to NYC to be nine and a half hours:

Meanwhile flights from New York to London have been achieved in under five and a half hours. This is a rather significant difference.

Quote from: stack
It seems Continental was using 757's back in 2012 for trans-atlantic flights. So what?

So if your airliner is stingy and gives you the wrong plane with insufficient fuel you might find that your nonstop flight makes stops. The point again is that the planes are highly reliant on the weather to reach their destination.

Quote from: stack
Still, you said, "Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams." But of course they are possible because most flights don't use and try to avoid the jetstream east to west. They are doing so without the jetstream. So I don't know why you made that statement.

In these FE discussions there is heavy emphasis on flight times, and the flights pointed out are typically the fastest route in the fastest winds. They can't make the same time without the jet streams, or even the same path. If you point out any particular flight as some sort of proof you need to separate out the winds. This is another element to the assumptions.

That's not taken through a telescope, which was claimed by the poster was possible.

And if you read the entire page it says that he took a series of 30 second exposure images and stacked them on top of each other with special time-lapse software. You don't even need an equatorial mount to do that with singular images. Just take a series of wide angle photographs over the night and align them in software.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 08:31:35 PM »
Irrelevant. The green diverging southern path in my last image is still in the North Atlantic and moves through that area.

And no, the return flights take much longer between London and NYC. The faster NYC to London flight is only possible because of the jetstream which has the quickest winds.

If you get on the wrong plane with insufficient fuel sometimes those "nonstop" return flights even have to stop for fuel:

    Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.

    The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes.

A "control flight" is in reference the the claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 07:53:48 PM »
I don't know what the winds were like that day. Sure, they can divert from a typical great circle due to winds, traffic too. You said, "When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds."

They can do that due to the aforementioned headwind issue, but you make it seem like that's the only way they can fly, which is not true.

Actually the last graphic I provided shows a returning flight which did veer off significantly to the South. If you were expecting such a statement describing that planes fly significantly to the south to account for all possible wind conditions in the North which might provide a Northern path, you are mistaken. I said that planes take that longer southern way around, and they do.

The fact that two planes flying from London to NYC, with the same point of origin, can take wildly different paths to reach the same destination clearly demonstrates that the planes are flying an optimal route based on wind conditions and it is not a route primarily based on closest geometrical points. The dotted line in the image is the most optimal geometrical route for an RE and the planes fly nowhere near that. The fact is that the planes are highly reliant on the winds and there is no "control flight".

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 07:01:37 PM »
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.

(my bold); Why do you invent these things?  That, sir, is complete fabrication, and obvious to anyone who flies or watches a flight-tracking service. 

Currently; ETH552, UAE9249, PLM999, MPH6161 for example; all travelling Europe-North America, and all mixed in with West-East traffic.

Incorrect. While the winds can shift around, there is generally a separation from the West-East traffic on the return flight.


Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?

Looking at flights between NY and London (click to see route):

BA 185 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 941 (EGLL - KEWR)
United 16 (KEWR - EGLL)

The FlightAware anticipated routes are quite similar in both directions, but the actual routes for past flights are really remote from each other:

The two westbound routes are either 800 km north or 1,000 km south of the eastbound route (the dotted line shows the shortest path).

Why are the two westbound routes different and so remote from each other? Why this difference of about 1,800 km?

Why BA 185 route seems to be composed of two arcs?

Did the pilots changed their mind in flight because of the jet streams? Is it related to ETOPS constraints, or alternate airport at Santa Maria? or something else?

Top Answer from the thread:

The reason this is done is due to the winds aloft. The Jet Stream is a powerful current of air that blows in a west to east direction. Airplanes crossing the Atlantic from west to east take advantage of the jet stream to get there faster and save fuel, so a course is chosen to stay in the stream as much as possible. Airplanes going from east to west will be slowed by the jet stream, using more fuel and taking longer to get across, so a course is chosen to avoid the strongest winds.

The difference can be very significant, I've been on flights from NYC to London which take 6h 30m, and ones from London to NYC that take almost 9 hours.

We can clearly see that the return flights on those routes do not follow the same path.

Quote from: stack
Bottom line, East to West. Top line, West to East. The exact opposite of what you claim:

What were the winds like on that day? Flights regularly optimize their routes on a daily basis, even multiple times a day, depending on conditions. In the graphic I provided above there was one plane which took a far +800km northern route from London to NYC and another plane which took a southern route over 1000 km below the middle route. The routes are clearly not overlapping. They are finding a route optimal for the journey and veer significantly away from the East-West traffic, and can span hundreds of km southward.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 09:04:05 AM »
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 06:31:37 AM »
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.

I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.

When I was a kid, my father had an 8 inch Schmidt Cassegrainian telescope. It had an equatorial mount. It had a motor on it with constant speed of one rev/day. If you turned it off, whatever you looked at would move across and then out of the field of vision. One rev/day , 360 degrees, divide by 24, you get 15 degrees per hour. Worked all night while looking at various things. Works everywhere in the world. No speed control on the motor, it was always 15 degrees per hour.

I'm not sure why you guys like to come here and keep trying to claim this in repetition, but it is a falsity. Unguided Telescopic Equatorial Mounts only work for a few minutes before drifting off of the target star.


$650 Unguided Equatorial Mount -

"Question: When polar aligned north, can you use a ball head mount to rotate your camera 180* to capture the southern sky without trailing?

Answer: Hi Doyle, YES! Once the head is aligned, move your camera wherever and it will track the object for up to 5 minutes when using a wide-angle the lens. A telephoto (200mm) can only go about 2 minutes."


In this one, on a page called "Equatorial Mount Tracking Errors" the author shows stars which drift out of shot within a short amount of time on an EQ mount.

Equatorial Mount Tracking Errors


"Capture Selected Frames capture mode was selected with period 1 second (exact period was 1.11s)."


Other types of advanced EQ mount packages are computerized with multiple motorized axis' and have cameras for optical guide tracking and following of a target star, and are more reliable, but this isn't what you're referring to.

Unguided telescopic equatorial mounts can only track for short amounts of time:

It's not exactly 15 degrees an hour. The celestial bodies change speed throughout the day. It's just blamed on refraction.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 02:11:15 AM »
There isn't actually any reliable way to measure the distance between two distant points. Planes and ships are liable to be behind or ahead, and pilots strategically use jet streams to reach distant points. Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams. The pilots travel between the coordinate points. And the coordinate points are based on the position of Polaris or time zones.

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 30, 2021, 10:21:54 PM »
Quote from: Hillary
"To hold the house and the senate in 2022 and to win the electoral college because also republicans are doing everything they can to create an environment in which winning the electoral college even narrowly the way joe biden did will be out of reach for a democrat so I understand why people want to argue for their priorities that's what they believe they were elected to do but at the end of the day nothing is going to get done if you don't have a democratic majority in the house in the senate and our majority comes from .people who win.

So look I'm all about um having vigorous debate i think it's it's good and it gives people a chance to be part of the process but at the end of the day it means nothing if we don't have a congress that will get things done and we don't have a white house that we can count on to be sane and sober and stable and productive so this is going to be a very intense period not just for the democratic party but for the country."

Where do you see the Whitehouse after losing 2024 mentioned in that quote? You are clearly wrong.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 30, 2021, 08:24:14 PM »
I'm sure some aspects of weather we will never be able to accurately predict. But other aspects, like hurricanes, etc., have advanced quite well. And probably have saved many lives.

I doubt that there has been much advancement. Here is an article from 2016:

    At 11 o’clock on the night of Sept. 29, the National Hurricane Center in Miami posted an updated prediction for Hurricane Matthew. Using the latest data from a reconnaissance aircraft, the center’s computerized models led meteorologists there to conclude, in a post on the center’s website, that “only a slight strengthening is forecast during the next 12 to 24 hours.” Their prediction proved to be astonishingly amiss: The following day, Matthew exploded from a Category 1 into a Category 5 hurricane, with winds gusting to 160 miles per hour, strong enough to flatten even the sturdiest homes.

    This was hardly the first time that United States government forecasters significantly underestimated a storm’s potential. Last year, 24 hours before Patricia reached Mexico’s Pacific Coast, it unexpectedly mushroomed from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane, its winds topping 215 miles per hour. Luckily, Patricia — officially the strongest hurricane on record in the Western Hemisphere — made landfall over a sparsely populated region. Matthew behaved similarly, its intensification also unforeseen and sudden, occurring just two days before it overwhelmed Haiti. Residents there had little time to flee, and the death toll exceeded 1,000. (More than 30 died in the United States.) The failure to make timely, accurate predictions about these storms would have had far deadlier consequences had they made landfall near a major metropolitan area. In South Florida, for example — where the initial forecasts for a storm of modest size would not have prompted hurricane-weary residents to evacuate — Matthew’s rapid increase in power could have pinned down more than six million people in the region.

Multiple hurricanes have behaved unpredictably, have caused loss of life, and could have caused massive loss of life.

    These are the sorts of deficiencies that can prompt forecasters to underestimate the severity of a hurricane, for instance — or overhype an end-of-the-world blizzard, like the one Gary Szatkowski anticipated on the last Sunday in January 2015. Szatkowski, now retired but then the head meteorologist for the National Weather Service office in Mount Holly, N.J., predicted that a cold front creeping westward toward the East Coast would evolve into an unprecedented nor’easter. The Weather Service issued an official warning: A “crippling and potentially historic blizzard” with “life-threatening conditions” and up to three feet of snow was coming.

    Ten inches of snow fell. By late Monday night, Szatkowski, whose office forecasts the weather for more than 11 million people, accepted that he had made a huge blunder and said in two tweets: “My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public. You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t.”


    One sunny spring morning last year, I sat in on an undergraduate course at the University of Washington called Weather Prediction and Advanced Synoptic Analysis. Mass, doe-eyed and gangly, with finger-thick eyebrows and a pronounced aquiline nose, arrived for the hourlong lecture perspiring heavily. “I just squeezed in a run,” he told the class, apologetically. On an overhead projector, he showed some past National Weather Service predictions; about one-third of them were wrong.

One third of the models are wrong.

    Even though Lapenta got his new supercomputers in January, most of the system remains idle. “It’s extraordinary,” Mass says. “They are only using a small portion of it.” He also notes that the upgrades still aren’t enough to run high-resolution ensembles effectively. Lapenta, however, remains optimistic; he’s involved with NOAA’s Next Generation Global Prediction Initiative, and he formed an advisory committee to evaluate the National Weather Service’s numerous models and come up with a plan to build better ones. He invited Mass to join the 14-member team, which met for the first time in the summer of 2015.

    “I came away very sobered,” Mass says. “It’s a real mess. They are running way too many models.” At last count, the centers managed at least a dozen models, some in development, others already operating. None work very well. (They recently spent eight years and more than $100 million trying to fix their main hurricane-forecasting model. But it still performs so poorly that meteorologists inside the agency want to scrap it altogether.)


    In the summer of 2015, Mass visited Boulder to give a presentation at a conference on weather modeling. His 12-minute talk focused on the poor performance of regional models, which typically bring higher resolution to smaller geographical areas, and should, as a result, be better at predicting localized events, like flash floods and hurricanes. But they’re not — a fact Mass demonstrated with PowerPoint slides of statistics. He concluded his presentation with a photo of a man doing a face palm, above which he had typed, “Em-bar-rass-ment: the shame you feel when your inadequacy or guilt is made public.” The audience of 200 groaned.

Weather prediction is most accurately depicted by a man doing a face palm.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 30, 2021, 07:36:03 PM »
A better example might be something that is not 35 years old. I'm imagining that we've made some technological advances in the past 3 1/2 decades.

Actually the 1989 NOVA documentary I posted said that weather prediction would never significantly improve.

    Lorenz was quite correct. We can never
    know the initial conditions accurately
    enough to prevent some tiny unnoticed
    error - even the flapping wings of a
    butterfly - amplifying itself and
    destroying our predictions. That's why we
    never will dramatically improve our
    weather forecasting. Lorenz actually
    calls it the butterfly effect.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 430  Next >