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.


Topics - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
Suggestions & Concerns / TFES Flat Earth Video Subdomain
« on: July 29, 2022, 02:48:47 AM »
In the past we have discussed the possibility of creating a custom video subdomain gallery with Flat Earth YouTube feeds. One option may be a Word Press plugin called Smash Balloon which can build dynamic grid galleries of YouTube videos. The plugin is smart enough to not load the heavier video elements in the gallery until the user starts interacting with it, for performance reasons.

See the YouTube demos on the Smash Balloon site: https://smashballoon.com/youtube-feed/

It seems that you can make nice looking galleries based on a single channel or from a YouTube playlist composed of multiple channels. Notably for this project it also appears possible to build a gallery based on custom YouTube searches: https://smashballoon.com/youtube-feed-old/custom-search-guide/

There are some fairly advanced features such as customizing the information the video shows in the gallery, and adding a button at the end of the video back to the site.

I could see such a gallery, or galleries, as a feature item that might even eventually replace the main content of the front page. It would be a video site which unifies and harnesses the content of the wider Flat Earth community. People would go to tfes to see the latest Flat Earth related content. It would capture attention, increase visitor return, and cause the interest to grow.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 14, 2022, 03:59:37 AM »
We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

New York Times - Prince Andrew Is Stripped of Military Titles as Sexual Abuse Case Proceeds

    LONDON — Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has been forced to relinquish his military titles and royal charities, Buckingham Palace said on Thursday, a stinging rebuke by the British royal family a day after a federal judge in New York allowed a sexual abuse case against him to go ahead.

    The palace said that Andrew, 61, who has been accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a teenager, would also no longer use the title “His Royal Highness,” a prized symbol of his status as a senior member of the royal family. In a terse statement, the palace said that Andrew would “continue not to undertake any public duties” and that he “is defending this case as a private citizen.”

    Andrew, who is also known as the Duke of York, has denied Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, which date from a period in which he was friendly with the financier and convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. The duke’s lawyers tried to get her lawsuit dismissed, but the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, ruled against him on Wednesday.

    The decision by Buckingham Palace completes a stunning fall from grace for a man who was once one of the royal family’s most popular members — a dashing war hero and eligible bachelor — but who has since become a disgraced figure, left to explain why he associated with a convicted criminal like Mr. Epstein.

    The announcement by Buckingham Palace came after extensive discussions within the royal family, according to people with ties to the palace. It was designed to head off an effort by Andrew to rehabilitate himself, according to one person. The language in Buckingham Palace’s statement, officials said, was meant to underscore the permanence of the sanction against him.

    Andrew had been largely banished from public life since November 2019, when he gave a disastrous interview to the BBC in which he insisted he had never met Ms. Giuffre and made several bizarre claims to deflect her charges, among them that he was medically incapable of sweating, as she had asserted.


3
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Table of Contents and Outline
« on: November 20, 2021, 07:51:54 PM »
Some may have noticed that I have started thinking about this again. It took a while to circle around back to this. It took Rowbotham thirty years to come out with his final version, which I think is appropriate since a lot of this content is new and not built on a compilation or reiterations of earlier works, and would necessarily require thorough exploration, investigation, debate, and thought.

My goal at present will be to provide the commentary and philosophical and social arguments. We already have direct evidence and information about the Flat Earth and the models in the Wiki and that will be merged or rephrased into the work. I think this book should be split into three or four volumes. The first volume will focus on philosophical and social arguments. The second volume will focus on the evidence, which the reader can jump directly to if inclined. The third volume will focus on the Flat Earth models the community discusses.

The Wiki already contains much of the physical stuff, which will basically be merged or rephrased into the volumes two and three. I currently don't envision a section on history and would need someone like Dionysios to create a volume on the details of ancient Flat Earth history, so my current plan isn't to include much of that unless someone can contribute in that regard.

To complete the work a section on religion at the end seems oddly important, even though we don't really talk about that much. It's pretty important to the wider Flat Earth community though, and was important to previous FE societies. It can disclaim that not everyone connects FE to religion, but this is information on the subject. It can include an index on the flat earth quotes from scripture. Maybe it can include both the geocentric interpretation and the UA interpretation. It would be interesting to gather a few paragraphs of content from some of the bigger proponents on what Flat Earth means to them on religious grounds and include it into the book at the end.

Revised thoughts on a general outline:

Introduction (I would like to use this text)

Table of Contents
 -- + Instructions (Reader should jump around to their topic of interest)

Volume I - The Philosophy
 -- Prologue
 -- Reasons to Consider a Space Travel Conspiracy
 --
 --
 --

Volume II - The Evidence (mostly taken or rephrased from the Wiki)
 --
 --
 --
 --

Volume III - The Models (mostly taken or rephrased from the Wiki)
 --
 --
 --
 --

Volume IV - Religion ?
 --
 --
 --
 --

4
Flat Earth Projects / Improve Flat Earth Society TFES Wiki Article
« on: October 06, 2021, 01:18:01 AM »
I'd like to look into improving this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society

This page should double as a history primer for the society.

Some notes:

- Need dates on when Rowbotham started the Zetetic Society and when the UZS was started

- Need more background content on Samuel Shenton and Charles K Johnson

- Need brief summary of major works

- We should distinguish that Rowbotham originated the Monopole model, the Universal Zetetic Society originated the Bi-Polar model, and that our society originated Universal Acceleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration.

5
Flat Earth Community / Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator
« on: September 09, 2021, 05:54:01 PM »
Dave Hahn, PhD., recently wrote an article called The Bewilder Gambit: a conspiracy theorist tactic designed to distract

The Lorentz equations of Special Relativity are nonsense designed to distract, apparently.

"The formula is not just something that I do not know, but I also don’t know where I begin to look it up."

I didn't have that problem.

From the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration



From the first result of the google search 'lorentz factor and the speed of light':

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/relativistic-quantities



Same equation. Embarrassing.

And if you are trying to educate people on the incorrectness of your opponents why even make the "you can't travel faster than the speed of light so UA can't work" claim without doing the bare amount of research into the possibility that you might be wrong?

Quora knows:


https://i.imgur.com/JX2En1Z.png

Stephen Hawking knows:


https://i.imgur.com/QrDDwhP.png

Even Reddit knows:


https://i.imgur.com/0g5AFBf.png

6
Flat Earth Projects / Eratosthenes Article
« on: August 31, 2021, 10:09:16 PM »
I made significant changes to the Eratosthenes article regarding his Round Earth circumference description, assumptions, and the modern value. Here it is for comment - https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes

7
This came out a few days ago, and appears  to be of interest: https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/13006

I am working through it. It's over 400 pages in length. One of the key points of interest is whether it was a serious or satirical organization. The author claims that it was a mix of the two.

8
I noticed that in recent years the Flat Earth Maps page has become a source for people to get ideas about possible FE models. People usually link back to this page as a demonstration of possibilities.

We see variants of the Monopole model and the Bi-Polar model. However, this does not complete the range of possibilities. For added completeness, we should consider adding the three pole models. Possibly these two:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Anti-Newtonian - The original Flat Earth of the model of the 1800's which had three poles

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16443.msg213296#msg213296 - A recent variant of the three pole model created by a poster on the forums, showing one possibility

While certainly not as popular as the one and two pole variants, if people are going to that page to see the possibilities and get ideas, there should be more content there based on possibilities rather than popularity.

As well, we should add in the version of the Bi-Polar model that is just two circles on top of each other into that section, to illustrate that there are different possible configurations there.

9
Often we get questions along the lines of "why should we believe that it's fake," or "why should NASA be distrusted." The reasons to consider a Space Travel Conspiracy are numerous, and deserves a section of its own. We should contribute to this section with the rational behind the logic.

This thread will be a scrapbook for a range of topics:

Logic

   - A logical basis for skepticism

Philosophy of Science

   - Each generation of science is based on questioning supposed truths

Skeptical Scholars

   - Scholars who were skeptical of government and scientific claims

Military Incentive

   - Why space travel is connected to military

Historical Examples (for why distrust should be the default)

   - Governments Lie - Examples of government lies throughout history
   -- US Government Lies - Examples of the US Government's lies throughout history

Direct Evidence

   - The Apollo/Shuttle/DISCOVR anomalies

Other Topics:

    - International Space Programs may not be independent
    - The Three Body Problem raises questions on NASA's claims of Solar System navigation
    - Contradicting Experimental Evidence ( ie. the earth-based geocentric experiments which suggest the earth doesn't move [on the horizontal] contradicts NASA's claim that it does)

10
I am reposting my observation here for posterity and reference regarding the Moon Tilt Illusion.

On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 1:

I placed the ball on a post along the side of a road. The sun was shining from a horizontal direction. The ball is half lit.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/6AMa1fZ.jpg



Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg



Image 3:

From a position front of the ball, with our back to sun, we can see that the illuminated portion of the Moon pointing upwards in the background. See Full Size for detail.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/yXGCLyR.jpg



Image 4:

Closeup of the Moon in the background, while zooming in the device created a digital leveling tool on the screen to help ensure the device was level. Compare the orientation to the Moon in the Full Size Image 3 above.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg



Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg



Another version of the Tilt - https://i.imgur.com/n1cYCrS.jpg

Image 6:

Finally, I turned the device and placed the ball across the screen from the sun on a wide frame. The illuminated portion pointed at the Sun.

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/BNazZl6.jpg


11
Suggestions & Concerns / Increase Upload Size on Wiki
« on: March 07, 2021, 05:42:48 AM »
At one point we had set a 30MB upload limit. After some of the MediaWiki updates the upload limit was reduced to 2MB, which I assume is the default. I have a few images for articles that I would like to upload that surpasses this limit.

If space is not a concern, would it be possible to increase the limit to some higher amount, of at least 5MB?

Also, another potential issue is that the users on the Wiki are unable to delete their pages or media to cleanup things which are not needed and not used. So we have a collection of unused pages and images on the Wiki that are floating around.

12
October Surprise - Information is coming out showing that Obama, Clinton and Biden executed Seal Team 6 and sent money to Iran to cover it up.



Edit: Re-uploaded here: https://puresocial.tv/breaking-whistleblower-drops-hard-evidence-on-biden-obama-hillary-about-seal-team-6-audio-proof/

13
Flat Earth Community / Thoughts on updating the FAQ
« on: September 17, 2020, 07:23:54 PM »
At some point we need to consider updating the FAQ. Since it was written the Wiki and the theories and stances involved have expanded substantially.

Brief summary of my wishlist:

EA as fundamental tenet

After many years of discussion, EA won as the FE celestial model. It's time to put it in its place as the accepted model.

Perhaps a brief description along with the context: It's an alternative way of looking at things. We can either interpret observations as light curving or that the entire earth is curving. Astronomy is inherently a pseudoscience <link> without the power of scientific certainty, and so we are relegated to comparing possible explanations for phenomena and assessing the differences between those possible explanations with our human assumptions, ideas, and limitations. If we admit that anything is possible when waking up to an unknown world, then starting with assumptions is inexcusable. Early astronomers deduced a Round Earth based on an untested axiom that light is straight over long distances. ... There is some evidence for the presence of the curving of light: <brief points> <link>

Equal time for Bi-Polar model

The bulk of the Monopole model content should be moved to a page called 'Monopole Model' like the Bi-Polar Model page. FAQ provides summary on both, images on both, with links to both. The remaining content of the FAQ, such as on airplanes and high altitude photography, would mainly contain content agnostic to both.

The celestial bodies are spheres, why isn't the Earth?

This is already in there, but make more prominent. The logic that the earth must be a sphere because the celestial bodies are spheres is only one possible interpretation. It can also be logical that all bodies need a plane of existence to exist upon or over, like all other bodies of human experience. Basketballs have a basketball court. The game Water Polo consists of a court with a flat bottom and balls which float on a medium. It does not follow because those balls are round, that the courts must also be round.  This was one of the Ancient Greek fallacies to assume that the Earth is a sphere because we see spheres in the sky <link/reference>

14
Flat Earth Community / Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 09, 2020, 06:29:47 AM »
I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Evidence
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, comet tails, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature.

Universal Acceleration

For UA, the best test that could be done would be to test the scale experiment in a vaccum chamber at different latitudes. If you read this page, the experiments which show variations were not done in a vaccum:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

On this one some type of device would need to be constructed with a scale in a vaccum chamber. This may be more difficult as the vaccum may adversely affect components in a precision scale to be unreliable when the chamber fills and evacuates. If resolved such an experiment can be tested against a second precision scale not in a vaccum chamber.

Again, it can be sent to different people at different latitudes for confidence.

What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?

15
Flat Earth Projects / Wiki - Equivalence Principle page created
« on: August 05, 2020, 01:39:34 AM »
I noticed that we did not have a page dedicated to the Equivalence Principle. I started one, and embedded that Classroom Aid explanatory video that either totallackey or iampc suggested to include.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

16
Flat Earth Media / International Shipping Agent
« on: July 04, 2020, 12:38:16 AM »
This person was featured on Mark Sargent's show, and had some interesting comments regarding International Shipping and the shape of the Earth. He says that the routes do not make the logical RE routes. Oakland to Guam passes through Alaska rather than Hawaii; shipments from South America to the rest of the world route through the US.

Runtime: 9m


17
Flat Earth Projects / The Atlantic Split
« on: July 03, 2020, 10:32:06 PM »
I am looking into a variant map to the Bi-Polar model, which I call the Atlantic Split. In this variant the split occurs in the Atlantic Ocean rather than the Pacific Ocean.

Link to Bi-Polar Model overview: https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

I was able to derive a rough draft version the Atlantic Split as generated from an old version of the nullschool webapp: https://web.archive.org/web/20170731230036/https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=primary_waves/azimuthal_equidistant=-205.32,21.99,115/loc=154.680,-89.951



Now, the continents might not look exactly like that, as this website has limited ways to warp the map. My idea of the Atlantic Split is that the African and South American continents are on the Left and Right sides of the world, with the other landmasses in some configuration in between. Africa or South America might be smaller or less warped in shape than what is depicted. Again, there is limited control over this aid map. The continents South America and Africa should be considered to be blobs on the sides of the map.

At first glance Africa and South America seem quite abnormal, as compared to the ones we see on the Mercator Map. However, consider the Peter's Projection. The Peter's Projection supposedly provides a more accurate depiction of the continents in terms of land mass. The size of Africa and South America are much bigger in this map.



https://www.oxfordcartographers.com/our-maps/peters-projection-map/

Quote
Maps not only represent the world, they shape the way we see it. The revolutionary Peters Projection map presents countries in their true proportion to one another: it has been adopted by the UN, aid agencies, schools and businesses around the world.

WHAT IS THE PETERS MAP

The Peters World Map is an Equal Area cylindrical projection with standard parallels at 45 degrees thus resulting in a distortion of shape which is stretched about the equator and squashed towards the poles, but having the great advantage that all countries are correct in size in relation to each other.

So, it is possible that Africa and South America are much larger than normally depicted.

18
Flat Earth Projects / FAQ Improvements - 'Spotlight Sun'
« on: June 15, 2020, 09:41:02 PM »
On FAQ improvements, I think that we should to rephrase the term 'spotlight' in the FAQ. Perhaps change it to a 'circular area of light' upon the earth. This will eliminate the "how can the sun be a spotlight??" question that comes up now and then.

Are there any objections to this?

19
There is a 2019 European Journal of Physics paper called What the gravitation of a flat Earth would look like and why thus the Earth is not actually flat, written by two Theoretical Physicists. Summarily they apply universal gravitation to an FE disk and conclude that it won't work and so the Earth can't be flat.

Quote
Abstract

This paper analyzes the calculation of the gravitational field of a disc-shaped
mass. This model, corresponding to the infamous flat Earth, is discussed in
detail.



This is similar to the approach many others take: Instead of looking into the matter they proceed to make up their own arguments for something which may not even be believed or part of any model. A cursory search will show what FE theorists actually say about gravity, even if not about UA. There is also the universal gravitation with an infinite earth model, and even the (IMO incorrect) "gravity = buoyancy" arguments that are generally unsupported here, but proposed by the FE'ers on Youtube. It's not really hard to find what FE says about gravity. The subject of gravity is one of the first things you learn about FE when doing research into the matter.

If one reads the paper, they also argue against themselves: "Flat-Earthers strike back? Let us consider first that the disc of the flat Earth is rotating in its plane" and then conclude that doesn't work either, like anyone ever actually proposed that as a gravity solution.

This is all like someone arguing that "RE can't work because water would just fall off the ball earth"... totally disregarding what is proposed and believed.

One of the first steps in the investigational method of the Scientific Method is to "research as much about your subject as you can".  At least address the first thing you come up with from a cursory search on the matter, not something that you make up yourself. It appears that not only do Theoretical Physcists have trouble satisfying the experimentation part of the Scientific Method, they have trouble with performing cursory research as well.

20
Flat Earth Projects / greenolive's Flat Earth model
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:25:32 AM »
I notice that we have a new user, greenolive, who has some interesting ideas for a Flat Earth. I'm not really sure where he got his model from, and had honestly thought it may have been nonsense at first, but it appears that he put some thought into it. New and different FE models can give some food for thought, regardless of the motivation.

From his elaborate posts I gather that:

- The wider world cosmology looks like the features in the Brazilian map. The physical earth is generally square or diamond in shape. Yellow square part is Antarctica, blue circle is the habitable earth.



- The land elevation of Antarctica gradually rises as you proceed from the shore to the edge.

- There is a middle North Pole and two South Poles aligned in a vertical line within the blue part of that map: A Northern Geographic South Pole (top), a North Pole (middle) and a Southern Geographic South Pole (bottom). Reminds me of the FE model in the old The Anti-Newtonian book.

- There may be continents of ice at either of those two South Poles (unclear).

- Although the North Pole is the middle pole, Mt. Zion is at the physical center of the world.

- The general continental layout sort of looks like the classic FE Monopole map. The southern continents are re-positioned and are either further or closer to each other than depicted in the Monopole map.

- The southern tip of Africa points to the bottom (Southern) geographic South Pole. The southern tips of South America and Australia point towards the top (Northern) geographic South Pole.

Is that right? Is there anything else you can tell us about your model, greenolive?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >