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 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 513  Next >
8461
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Model: Clockwork Sun
« on: April 10, 2017, 12:18:54 AM »
Are you actually saying that the stars rise in the west in the southern hemisphere?
No, no seriously - is that the assertion you just made?

Yes, the stars rotate in an opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. No, as explained in the post immediately preceding this one, they are not perceived as rising from the West.

We can see that the stars do seem to converge and then spread apart, and rotate in opposite directions around their celestial systems. Look at star trails from the equator:



8462
Quote
The middle school explanation is that the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation makes it drift between the tropics. The period of this drift is incompatible with your gear-switching model, particularly because, once again, if the sun were jumping to a "gear" rotating in the opposite direction, then its path in the sky would reverse and it would rise in the west and set in the east. This is not the case.

There is a perceived change of direction of the sun, but again, it is perceived as a North-South change rather than an East-West change. If the sun suddenly started rotating in an opposite direction in today's local rotation over us, it is logical to say that it would rise in the West rather than in the East.

But the sun is not directly over us when it changes rotation. The sun is further South rather than North.

This is perfectly explainable if we consider what is being seen. Here is a quick illustration. We should make a better one for inclusion into the Wiki or the new Earth Not a Globe book, however.


8463
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Model: Clockwork Sun
« on: April 09, 2017, 11:41:14 PM »
To summarise - "we don't know why we are right bu you're wrong." Once again, go back and read again - the switching either demands that (a) the sun goes from rotating clockwise to anticlockwise as it "changes gears" or (b) it stops and changes local direction to continue going clockwise around a different circle. Neither of these things are "visible" in the least.

Sure it's visible. Look at the sun's analemma. The Analemma of the Sun is made by taking a picture of the sun at the same place and time every day for a year, which shows the displacement of its movement. The image below displays the following:

- The sun rotates clockwise over the North Pole and counter-clockwise over the South Pole.
- The sun is moving North to South (top-right is Northward, bottom-left is Southward)
- The sun reaches the Tropic of Cancer on June 21st (top most position)
- The sun reaches the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21st (bottom most position)
- The sun passes over the Equator twice, on March 21st and Sept 21st (where the lines intersect).


8464
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Model: Clockwork Sun
« on: April 09, 2017, 11:03:50 PM »
The "switching gears" is a problem - what determines the switch? Is it on a timer, or does it just happen?

The particular mechanism of movement is unknown to us, but the movement is visible.

Quote
And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "traveling North-South" too - what is its periodicity? What makes it stop and turn back? Is it on a track?

Let me go over some middle school for you: In addition to moving Eastward and Westward the sun is also moving Northward and Southward. Throughout the year it is it moving between the Topic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern Hemisphere. This happens in the Round Earth model and it is happening in the Bipolar model.

The periodicity is that it reaches the Tropic of Cancer in the North on June 21st and it reaches the Tropic of Capricorn in the South on December 21st. The location of the sun at different celestial latitudes is also, as an aside, why people born on those dates have either Cancer (June 20 – July 22) or Capricorn (December 21 – January 19) Zodiac Signs. The sun moves over the equator on March 21st and on September 21st.

Under the Bipolar model, when the sun moves over the equator it moves into the opposing celestial system, which are rotating in opposite directions from each other over their respective poles and grinding against each other like a set of interlocked gears spinning in opposite directions. The sun goes with the flow, and moves in the same direction as the stars are.

The moon and stars are also moving North-South over the year, but this is less observable than the sun.

Quote
Read it again - in a figure 8, an object makes one circle around a point clockwise, then chicanes and circles the other point anti-clockwise. This comment here was an alternative to that: if we want to maintain the direction of the sun around each point (i.e. if it circles each point in the same direction), it has to stop at the point where one circle meets the other and reverse apparent direction.

Look at it this way - put two clocks side by side: the hands when pointing at the 3 go "down" towards the 6 and "up" towards the 12. They are rotating in the same direction but to jump from the 3 on one clock to the 9 on the other, you have to change apparent direction at that point.

Unless the sun circles each point int he same direction, it would go east to west in the north and west to east in the south. This is not the case.

The sun does change direction from where it rises in the morning. In the Northern Hemiplane it usually rises from the North East or the South East, depending on what time of the year it is. It changes directions from North to South.

Quote
From an observer on the ground witnessing the Flat Earth sun making these circles around one point and then the other, it would describe flat ellipses centered over said point over the horizon.

There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its total visibility, and is a separate topic from this thread, and which there is evidence for. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth.

Quote
What's more, when the sun "changes gears", they would start going around in the opposite direction.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen the sun go backwards in the sky.

In the Round Earth model the stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere are also rotating in opposite directions around their centers. When the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere it follows the stars. And the sun doesn't go "backwards" does it?

The change of direction is perceived as a North-South change rather than East-West.

8465
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 09, 2017, 10:11:12 PM »
No one is saying it's fake.  Several us went outside this week to see it for ourselves.  I'd did the string thing and I held up a ball next to the moon. The phases of the ball and the phase of the moon matched.  I'm just surprised you didn't go out and look at things for yourself.

If you are not calling him a liar and if you are not denying his observation of the moon phase not lining up with the sun, then how do you explain the event?

8466
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Model: Clockwork Sun
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:49:29 PM »
Firstly, this isn't "The Bishop Model". This is the Bipolar model. Please change the name of the thread.  The Bipolar model is introduced in "The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes (1918). A pdf may be found in our library. The movement of the sun is described starting on page 30.

After the South Pole was discovered and more of the world was explored the Flat Earth model was updated with this information to include two poles and two celestial systems.  The Bipolar model replaced the Monopole model in the Flat Earth Society of the early 1900's (then called the Universal Zetetic Society). The author of Sea Earth Globe was the also primary editor of Earth Not a Globe Review, the Flat Earth research journal that continued Rowbotham's research. The Universal Zetetic Society died off during World War I and subsequent reboots of the society were based on Rowbotham's original Earth Not a Globe. Few copies of Sea Earth Globe or ENAG Review were available. It is only relatively recently that those other works were found in an obscure section of a British library and digitized online.

Most people still use the old model, but that is just because they are unaware of the research that happened after Rowbotham.

So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.

It's not rotating over a localized point for half the year. Remember, besides making circles around the North Pole or South Pole, the sun is constantly traveling North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. When the sun gets to the equator it switches gears into the opposite system.

Quote
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.

Why would it stop? Does a point following the path of a figure 8 stop?

Quote
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"

The sun isn't overhead when it is winter in northern latitudes. The idea that the sun goes overhead every day is fiction, and every middle school student should know this.

Quote
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

8467
Flat Earth Community / Re: The flat Earth and the equinox
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:40:16 PM »
Can you explain how people all across the globe see the sun for at least 12 hours but the sun doesn't​ cover at least half of the disk?  The only places that see the sun for more that 12 hours are very near the poles.  Can you help me understand? 

I can't for some reason load the sun animation .gif.

Can you link us to the evidence that all points on earth experience exactly 12 hours of daylight on that day?
Pay attention to the green zone in the link below.  Notice that the every latitude experiences twelve hours of sun on the equinoxes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hours_of_daylight_vs_latitude_vs_day_of_year_cmglee.svg

This page seems to suggest that the diagram was based on an equation. Can you do better?

8468
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:32:33 PM »


Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.

There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.

It is fantasy.

You're calling British naval officer and Round Earth believer, Sir James Clark Ross, a liar now?  :-\

8469
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:17:41 PM »
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.

Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.

It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively.

I... I don't even. I just can't. If it weren't so painful it would be funny.
Do you read your posts aloud before sending them? You probably should. A pen and paper might help too so you can draw some diagrams of the ridiculous claims made by your models.

The motion of the sun is the single greatest hole in the Flat Earth theory and your attempts to plug it are only making it exponentially larger with every post.

If you wish to talk about this I would suggest making a thread on the subject. I would prefer not to go off topic.

Quote
Incidentally, those walls of ice encountered at the Antarctic coast are the Antarctic fucking coast, not some unsubstantiated ice wall that has never been measured, circumnavigated or even witnessed. As soon as someone has been around the whole thing and confirmed that it is the contiguous ring of ice, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is complete fantasy.

Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.

8470
Flat Earth Community / Re: The flat Earth and the equinox
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:13:22 PM »
Can you explain how people all across the globe see the sun for at least 12 hours but the sun doesn't​ cover at least half of the disk?  The only places that see the sun for more that 12 hours are very near the poles.  Can you help me understand? 

I can't for some reason load the sun animation .gif.

Can you link us to the evidence that all points on earth experience exactly 12 hours of daylight on that day?

8471
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 09, 2017, 09:11:07 PM »
Did you try it though?

I have not. But the straight line path is clearly not pointing towards the sun in that video and there is no reason to think that the video was faked. Gary provided some links showing that other people have seen this as well. I find no reason to call them liars.

8472
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 08:56:27 PM »
So what is the norm?

Read the wiki article I linked. There is a source at the bottom which shows that there are walls of ice which comprise 95% of encounters of the Antarctic coast by frequency.

Quote
The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.

That is not correct, it wouldn't make figure 8's every day under that model. In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.

8473
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 08:42:25 PM »
Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils

It says in the very first sentence of that link that those types of coasts are not the norm.

There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?

I find the figure 8 path to be very convenient. The figure 8 shape is also seen in the sun'a analemma.

Quote
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?

What do you mean that the Ice Wall is unobserved? Tourists see it all the time when they go sightseeing to Antarctica. It's a wall at the coast.

8474
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 09, 2017, 08:38:06 PM »
Nice try, but Round Earth Theory can't claim that this is some kind of perspective effect that makes the sun significantly lower than it actually is. We are told here all the time that there are Sunrise and Sunset calculators that will predict the time of the sunrise and sunset in down to the minute under RET.

Tom, the sun is exactly where it's supposed to be, as is the moon. The optical illusion comes when you try to join them, you can't look at them both at the same time as they are opposite each other, when you do it with just your eyes the angle looks wrong, so you hold the string where the sun is and stretch it over to where the moon is and the angle is right, try it, simple empirical proof.

The person in the video in the OP already followed the straight line path to where the moon is pointing. It doesn't point towards the sun.

8475
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall
« on: April 09, 2017, 07:09:00 PM »
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.

An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall

8476
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 06:10:04 PM »
Just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and a warmonger.

You really think Trump's move is going to stop the murder of innocent people? It's a move to help his ratings and detract from Russian colluding.

Diplomacy was tried, as Trump prefered, and the Obama administration failed at it. Obama should have been a better manager to ensure that the stockpiles were eliminated.

Trump is simply dealing with Obama's mistakes and poor performance as president.


8477
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 06:00:34 PM »
Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?
Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.



After that Trump tweet happened the US was able to make a deal with Syria to purge their chemical weapons. They lied, so this is what happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html

You are being deliberately blind to reason. As if some old tweet by Trump prefering not to engage in conflict means that he should let them get away with murdering innocent men, women, and children with chemical weapons.

The position you and Dave are espousing is  telling of true intentions.

8478
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 05:52:50 PM »
1. Trump intervened without congressional approval and thus, could do so again at his whim.  Why would he suddenly stop with just one attack on one airport?  Not even on the chemical weapons stores?
2. Russia has formally suspended a deal which keeps Russian and US plans from flying in the same area with information sharing.
3. Russia has sent a destroyer to a port city as a show of force.

So while your first point is true to some extent, we don't know if Trump will continue.  The rest, however, is pretty much exactly what you just said.  Of course, Trump said Obama would do this when his poll numbers were in tailspin (just with Lybia or Iran) and Trump's poll numbers are in Tailspin so this might be just a one off shot to get praise.

After the Obama bill failed in Congress the US was able to get Syria to agree to eliminate 100% of their chemical weapons, which they now apparently lied about.

Of course a show of force is necessary. This has nothing to do with Trump prefering not to stir conflict in Syria. We had a deal and they broke it.

8479
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 07:52:29 AM »
https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?


You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit.

Obama wanted a formal decision to intervene in the Syrian Civil War that would take place over months. Trump made a surgical strike against equipment and which had few casualties, which was basically just a shot across the bow.

I hardly see the similarity. A lot more Syrians would have died with what Obama wanted, and it woild have engaged the US into further conflict with Russia.

8480
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM »
https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 422 423 [424] 425 426 ... 513  Next >