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 ... 307 308 [309] 310 311 ... 513  Next >
6161
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Research Project
« on: June 06, 2018, 01:29:52 AM »
My advice for creating a Flat Earth presentation is to do the following:

1. Show that the Flat Earth is a model under development, and that there are many interesting ideas.

2. Bring up the Earth Not a Globe Experiments, its repetitions, and hammer home how the results are not easily explained away with "refraction" as alleged by Rowbotham's opponents.

The "refraction" argument introduces increasingly absurd coincidences. See my post here:

Quote
Unfortunately, most of his experiments have been invalidated due to the proximity of his telescope to the surface of the river, where the effects of refraction are strongest.

Incorrect. Such an argument is supposing that there is a refraction effect that makes a Round Earth look like a Flat Earth.

This was explained to you in other threads. If you are going to claim that Rowbotham experienced atmospheric refraction effects where light passed through some warm air and a mirage was created then you are going to have to explain the coincidences that this argument creates.

It is quite the coincidence that a a chance atmospheric effect occurred at the time Rowbotham did the experiment.

If theorized a permanent one; it quite a coincidence and quite curious that there is this permanent gradient of warm air or pressure above the Bedford Canal at all times that makes the Round Earth look flat.

It is quite the coincidence that this effect, whether you theorize it to be chance or "permanent," is an effect that projects the body to the exact height it needed to be if the earth were flat, and no more or no less, according to Round Earth curvature and according to the the distance looked across in the particular experiment.

It is quite the coincidence that this effect projected the target and the land around it into the air and produced a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages produce.

Quite the coincidence that this perfect Flat Earth effect occurred on the numerous times Rowbotham performed the experiment. Quite the coincidence that Lady Blount and others experienced it too.

That is a bad argument. You are arguing for increasingly absurd coincidences. Any honest person should feel embarrassed to maintain that all of these coincidences happened.

The Earth Not a Globe experiments are not "invalidated." You are just a Coincidence Theorist.

6162
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 05, 2018, 11:41:16 PM »
So, to return to the topic at hand - nobody involved in FE theory

You mean... you, who is so obsessed with the topic that you come here every day?

Quote
is going to go to the kind of trouble Bobby Shafto or Tontogary have gone to recently.

Yeah, why are you guys putting the work all on Bobby?

Quote
They aren't interested in why the Southern Hemisphere has different constellations. It doesn't particularly fit in with any given theory, so what's the point of the observation?

What do you mean I'm not interested? I am interested in what you, the Flat Earth community, have to say, and what you research. Yet every time I log onto the forum I see that you have not researched anything. What's up with that?

Quote
People who are interested in how stuff works tend to assume that FE advocates must be interested too. They aren't.

You are the FE advocate. You are coming here in desire of answers, explanations, research. That is your desire. That is what you want. It is not my fault if you refuse to contribute. I'm putting in my 2%.

If wishes were fishses, we would have a lot of fish.

6163
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 05, 2018, 04:08:02 AM »
The Round Earth Theory has had thousands of years of development with millions of dollars of public funding. The Flat Earth Theory is a relatively new theory that receives zero funding, with hundreds of people like you complaining and refusing to participate. What are you expecting to see?

No one likes a complainer.

6164
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 05, 2018, 12:49:11 AM »
I don't know what to tell you, Rabinoz. You are the guy who comes back here every day, totally interested in the subject, and wanting to see it move forward, asking for explanations or evidence for this and that. You aren't logging on here every day "for the guests." You obviously have an avid interest. On my part I am merely providing an educational service to the community by reposting the talking points, as I have been doing for years.

You are the person who is obsessed with the subject, having multiple accounts and having adopted multiple aliases on multiple Flat Earth forums. You are the FE community. There isn't another secret FE community. The community's lack of being what you want it to be is your fault. When you point a finger you have three pointing back at you.

6165
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 04, 2018, 04:30:27 PM »
The FE community isn't interested in this stuff.

Spoiler:

You are the FE community.

6166
The OP said the quote was from airservicesaustralia.com: "Airservices is Australia's air navigation service provider" but it appears it quote is nowhere on that web site.

I am having to be very careful to not used any words that might be thought inappropriate and it is quite hard to do so.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/about/

First sentence.

6167
You are missing the fact that the sun travels North-South over the course of the year.

6168
Note: this thread is asking the question about the current flat earth 'explanation'.

And I just told you what the status was.

6169
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: June 03, 2018, 02:46:46 AM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

6170
The Flat Earth Society (then called the Universal Zetetic Society) officially adopted a Bi-Polar model of the earth with two poles in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.

Read the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our library or any of Lady Blount's works. No specific Bi-Polar map was ever officially adopted, and many configurations are possible, but a few modern posters like Sandokhan have their own bi-polar maps. You can find some illustrations in his Advanced Flat Earth Theory thread on the other website.

The Monopole model sticks around because of the influence of Earth Not a Globe and because some people still think that it is possible. The fact that NASA has contracts with Australian Flight Control operations does not really help migrate the movement.

It should also be noted that in the time before Rowbotham the Flat Earth movement was promoting a three-pole model of the earth, as described in the book The Anti-Newtonian. I believe that Rowbotham simplified the model because at the time there was really only evidence suggesting that one pole had been discovered.

6171
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations
« on: June 02, 2018, 07:57:54 AM »
Who are you guys talking to? You pretty much joined the the Flat Earth Society when you registered on the forum. You are the "FE enthusiasts." Do you see me making a ton of threads obsessed with the subject? You clearly seem way more interested in some of these topics than I am.

My advice is to research what the YouTube community has to say about the Southern Stars, and what Lady Blount's Bi-Polar model says.

6172
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?
« on: June 02, 2018, 12:37:15 AM »
Quote
It’s a pity people do not actually read the commentary on the links that rate provided.

Rabinoz did. He provided a quote that one of the images was from fish-eye lens.

As does your link state "which look like ellipses on this distorting fish eye image." You should probably read your own links before accusing others of that.

6173
Of course, FET contends that the rockets were all real, so how would declassifying how they did the rest undermine ICBMs?

Long range ICBMs require earth orbit to exist. 

Wrong.  ICBM means intercontinental ballistic missile.  A ballistic trajectory is not orbital by it's very definition.  Throw a rock and it's a ballistic missile.

Long range ICBMs get into a sub-orbital path, which could not exist if the earth is not a globe.

6174
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?
« on: June 01, 2018, 10:07:57 PM »
You would then find that your claim that the "angular distance between stars varies" is not supported by the extreme fish-eye lens photo you presented.

You do realize that the warping necessary would need to be opposite of a fish-eye/wide-angle lens.

Fish-eye lens warping:



Fish-eye scene example:




Diverging stars images:




6175
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?
« on: June 01, 2018, 09:53:45 PM »
Counter rotating stars have been observed and their "divergence" explained perfectly well by the spherical earth.

It does not make sense that stars diverge from each other in the Round Earth model. They are supposed to be light years away from each other. If any of the stars are spreading away from each other in a scene then it implies that they are traveling many light years in space over the course of the night.

6176
I would like to mention that he wasn't the most trustworthy guy.  He proposed that moonlight was cold and translucent,  said that he could cure every disease, and that he could prolong human life.  Once he was defeated in the realm of science, he started a new hobby of conning people.  Not a nice guy.

Totally wrong.

Rowbotham didn't propose the concept of moonlight having a cooling effect upon bodies. He quoted conventional sources. There is a following of people who are performing those type of experiments. Do a search for "cold moonlight" on YouTube.

Rowbotham listed about 8 or 9 diseases Phosphorous could help with. Hardly "every disease". There are thousands of diseases known to medicine. Nor was it only Rowbotham who promoted the health benefits of Phospherous.

6177
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?
« on: May 28, 2018, 06:51:36 PM »
This is the same question as "why doesn't the sun slow down when it gets into the distance"

I believe that the Electromagnetic Accelerator would also have the side effect of consistent speed.

Per perspective, there is an article here on the speed of the sun, although a rewrite is in order. Also see p-brane and his perspective videos.

6178
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« on: May 28, 2018, 05:37:02 PM »
Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?

6179
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« on: May 28, 2018, 02:56:48 PM »
The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.

Many people still think that the Monopole model is possible, and have explanations for what is going on with those flights. You can YouTube it.

6180
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 307 308 [309] 310 311 ... 513  Next >