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 ... 430  Next >
21
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:10:32 AM »
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:



Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Quote
Phys.org

Science website phys.org says:

How scientists can learn what distinguishes science from pseudoscience (Archive)

  “ Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong. ”

Livescience

According to What is Science? (Archive) on livescience.com we read:

  “ When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory. ”

US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination (Archive) of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

  “ [I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. ”

22
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 08:47:50 AM »
I said:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

You replied:

The article quoted on [my own wiki which I wrote and everything] says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

And then literally in the same page you say:

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions

And quote this article, by someone you hold up as an authority. The article you quoted says:
the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

My emphasis. So you've started off by disagreeing with a point I made and then almost immediately quoted someone you hold as an authority who says pretty much the same as what I did ???

Actually he says that the stars appear as measurable disks in telescopes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

Quote
You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The "true body of the star" is not the visible star that we see; but is something which is supposedly the "real star".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And this issue, which is now well understood, does not apply to the sun and moon which are a lot closer than other celestial objects like other stars and galaxies. It's nothing to do with "celestial objects" being special in any way, it's an issue with diffraction of point light sources. So you still need to explain why the sun and moon don't vary in angular size throughout the day and night. You have some explanation on the Wiki, I've explained why it doesn't work.

You are assuming now that the Sun we see is the real sun as it appears to perspective. Considering that you lied to make an argument, by ignoring that there is a difference between the stars we see and their "true" forum, we can see how dishonest you are.

No, actually, you need to explain why the stars and galaxies are illusions but nothing else is in the sky.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 10, 2022, 06:44:43 AM »
Washington Post is literally telling people how to cope.


24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 01:10:51 AM »
Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's  fail.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 07, 2022, 08:04:05 AM »
Prescription Shirt for the vax and booster junkies


27
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 07:19:03 AM »
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Quote from: stack
Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Not according to your article, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

Actually your quote was not about plane surveying. The page I link chronicles how the maps are flat, plane surveying is flat, and that the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps.

Quote from: stack
You realize that "State Plane" maps refer to the United States only, hence the name. And you realize that GPS stands for Global Positioning System. And GPS is based on the WGS84 ellipsoid standard. I guess GPS only works in the US?

The State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS), which is only used in the United States, is a plane coordinate system (north-south and east-west lines are perpendicular) in which each individual state has between one to six zones, depending on the state's size and shape. This coordinate system’s high level of accuracy is achieved through the use of relatively small zones.

Other countries have their own mapping systems, and they are flat. Again, it's explained in the page I linked.

The point is that the supposedly "round" systems use flat systems for presenting data to users. Utah Geographic Reference Center wrote an article about it: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

The spherical models are getting data from flat datasets. When you claim that the systems are inaccurate because they are using flat data you are betraying your own proof of using these systems as evidence for a spherical model.

28
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 07:15:09 AM »
Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.
I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience page

Quote from: ichoosereality
Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.
Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.

29
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 02:40:21 AM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.

30
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:25:56 PM »
I'm not sure how this, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong" in any way supports FE.

The key word there is "despite". Despite that it's wrong (allegedly), it's used.

Quote
Using State Plane maps, which are based on an ellipsoid

It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

31
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 07:34:11 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

    You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

    This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The author is a professor of physics and astronomy:



Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American article explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

This is not on the topic of the angular size of the stars. There is a different page for that - https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax

Your article is specific to State Plane Coordinates and Heights, that’s actually the title of the article. The entire lesson/article is about how to account for a spherical earth in regard to plane maps while surveying. I’m not sure why you picked this article. It’s all about a projections of a globe earth.

In the United States, State Plane systems based on the Transverse Mercator projection, an Oblique Mercator projection, and the Lambert Conic map projection, grid every state, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands into their own plane rectangular coordinate system…

State Plane Coordinates rely on an imaginary flat reference surface with Cartesian axes…

Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…

Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.


Actually your quote here implies that they use FE assumptions.

32
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 04:45:59 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644

    “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”

33
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 10:37:52 AM »
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."



By the measure of sunlight intensity we find that you are incorrect. It is approximated by a triangle - gradual.

Quote
Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars

An incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star. The diameter of the stars is explained to be an illusion by conventional science, and are not their actual size based on perspective. That's not even how it works in your model. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

The angular size of galaxies are also an illusion

34
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:13:22 AM »
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pDOsAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA261&ots=Vyjd4uh4kf&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

    "If we could see a star in the horizon, as easily as in the zenith, a half of the whole number, or 3,000, would be visible on any clear night. But stars near the horizon are seen through so great a thickness of atmosphere as greatly to obscure their light. and only the brightest ones can there be seen. As a result of this obscuration, it is not likely that more than 2,000 stars can ever be taken in at a single view by any ordinary eye."

35
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:43:57 AM »
No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

36
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:31:38 AM »
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

37
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:20:39 AM »
You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

38
You wrote as part of your argument, "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." Isn't that out of shot equal to out of frame?

That was done with a telescope, where a single star was in the frame. On the other hand this is a view of a whole swath of stars. Unlike that example, this was not done with a telescope.

The image you posted previously indicated that it was a shot of bottom part of the Orion constellation. We can see the bright star Rigel towards the lower right, and that the Orion constellation is lightly drawn in.





Quote
I already cited where he didn't manipulate the telescope, "...the equatorial mount, an Astro-Physics Mach1, is left to track on its own and is unguided."

This indicates that he didn't have a guided type mount, not that he didn't try to fix errors along the way to get a pristine result. He obviously is conscious of errors and making an artificially good scene, considering the software manipulation used.

39
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 03, 2022, 08:31:20 PM »
Tom,

Given that you believe forecasting the weather is a scam and thus are presenting a theory for a conspiracy occuring, a few critical thought questions:

1) From this assertion, what would be the motivation for news weatherman to be lying and scamming the public?

2) If weathermens motivation is money, how are they making money from this? Are insurance companies secretly paying weathermen to lie?

3) Do you believe weatherman (i.e. on the news) are paid actors?

4) Do you believe weatherman go into college or university thinking that predicting weather is possible but then when they are about to graduate or are then hired by weather companies they are then told in secret that everything they learned is a lie and a scam? Are they paid to keep the big secret going and their fake careers going? Who pays them?

5) Given your belief that forecasting weather is a scam and thus a theory of a conspiracy going on, do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist or a zetetic / empirical observer?

6) How do you ensure that your beliefs in conspiracy theories don't fog up your empirical observations?

This was explained to you:

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level. Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam? Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

No, they aren't fictitious. They just aren't very good. The scam came in when society convinced you that we were a super-advanced civilization who could model gravity and the weather. We are not and can not. This is all described in the NOVA documentary I embedded above.

Scam does not necessarily mean 'entirely fake'. Scam could mean that you were scammed by society into thinking that science was better than it is.

40
Who said that it would have drifted out of frame? It could have wobbled around, and errors fixed by software. He could have also been monitoring the situation casually and readjusting it when it did start drifting out of frame. He mentions three different pieces of software used to manipulate the images and, quite obviously, he is using the software to fix errors. We know that he is using software to fix errors, yet you continue to insist on this farcical example.

You don't have a good example of this at all. It is not a video from a telescopic equatorial mount, and nor is it raw video from a camera mounted equatorial mount. You continuously insist on this defective and invalid example because you can't contradict the sources given to you showing that it doesn't work.

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