The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: spherical on May 22, 2019, 10:02:30 PM

Title: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 22, 2019, 10:02:30 PM
On Tom Bishop Experiment at Wiki, he reports to have seem people playing at Lighthouse State Beach at Santa Cruz in Monterey Bay CA, from Lovers Point, 23 miles away, using a "good"  telescope, on a cold clear day.   Below a picture of the place he was, pointing directly to Lighthouse State Beach (Santa Cruz).  The picture is from Google Street View, with the maximum magnification it allows, perhaps 3 or 4 times.  Note the map at left and the compass at right, what help me to try to point to the Lighthouse State Beach.  I may be wrong with the exact location, tried my best.  Of course that camera is pretty bad, can't see anything on the other side of the bay, barely the mountains.

Can I ask you what brand and model of the telescope you used?
what aperture? eyepiece?
You said about chest on the ground, your telescope was not on tripod?
Do you have any pictures from the beach through the telescope?
It would be nice to have the pictures at the Wiki, don't you think?

The second picture is the opposite, from the Lighthouse State Beach directly to Lovers Point, at maximum magnification (3 or 4x).

(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/loverspoint.jpg)

(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/lighthouse.jpg)
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2019, 10:10:08 PM
You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent. The experiment was conducted from several different spots in that area.

Feel free to do the experiment on a body of water. The calmer the better. Sometimes it is foggy, but at other times it is not. It's the same Flat Earth water convexity experiment as all the others.

At one point I did have pictures of some objects across that bay that should not be seen, which I did not take, but posted on the other forum, but they seem to have disappeared from the internet and from local files several hard drives ago. There are plenty of other images of the Flat Earth scenes online these days, however.

I am thinking of an improvement on the experiment, with timelapse photography: Capture an object that shouldn't be seen and take a timelapse all day long, similar to the skunk bay timelapses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction). If it is really refraction then it should be apparent with the refractive effects over time. The effects which occur with the Skunk Bay peninsula give the impression that the fully revealed scene is not refraction.

Ben, Taboo Conspiracy, compares a Flat Earth scene which should not be seen with a "sinking" effect that occurs later in the day. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDvdk3NHQi8) The Sinking Ship effect is more distorted than the Flat Earth scene. Additional observations like this would be beneficial.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 22, 2019, 11:08:03 PM
Quote
You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent. The experiment was conducted from several different spots in that area.

Out of interest Tom what was the aperture of said Celestron telescope?  The accepted useable magnification limit of a telescope is 50x per inch or aperture so to support 500x magnification it would have to be a 10in refractor at least.  For a reflector that is average budget but for a refractor that is a LOT of dosh.   More commonly these sort of powers are advertised on small (60/70mm) refractors which are way beyond what they are capable of being used at.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2019, 01:43:54 AM
As I recall, when looking through it everything was upside-down, and it was a wide-body, so it was a reflector, not a refactor which I had typed above. It was a fairly wide aperture, but I don't know the details anymore. I had selected it because telescopes which collect more light are said to be better than telescopes which collect less. 500x may or may not have been usable, but that is what I recall was advertised with the eye pieces and all.

I did acquire another telescope recently, and have been considering locations for a time-lapse. An added infra-red filter would be even better to cut through the atmosphere. I do believe that should be possible to tell whether it is refraction or not through long time-lapses. The flat earth effect that many report seeing is real. Perhaps I will find a nice christian Flat Earth group near me to bear witness.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 23, 2019, 04:40:31 AM
As I recall, when looking through it everything was upside-down, and it was a wide-body, so it was a reflector, not a refactor which I had typed above. It was a fairly wide aperture, but I don't know the details anymore. I had selected it because telescopes which collect more light are said to be better than telescopes which collect less. 500x may or may not have been usable, but that is what I recall was advertised with the eye pieces and all.

Kind of a bad experiment then.  Poorly conceived.  Unrecorded and unrepeatable.  Not to mention, on your view, experiments happen in controlled conditions, so why call it an experiment to begin with?  I would hope you would have a bit more integrity for how often you shake your finger at others.  I guess everyone can be a hypocrite.

Quote
I did acquire another telescope recently, and have been considering locations for a time-lapse. An added infra-red filter would be even better to cut through the atmosphere. I do believe that should be possible to tell whether it is refraction or not through long time-lapses. The flat earth effect that many report seeing is real. Perhaps I will find a nice christian Flat Earth group near me to bear witness.

Perhaps you will be a little more diligent like Bobby Shafto was, and produce some verifiable and repeatable results instead of the wiki "experiment" which wouldn't pass muster for a freshman science student.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 23, 2019, 06:10:26 AM
I am thinking of an improvement on the experiment, with timelapse photography: Capture an object that shouldn't be seen and take a timelapse all day long, similar to the skunk bay timelapses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction). If it is really refraction then it should be apparent with the refractive effects over time. The effects which occur with the Skunk Bay peninsula give the impression that the fully revealed scene is not refraction.

Why not do this at an altitude above sea level, where the refraction effects won't affect the experiment?

The idea of the experiment is surely a loftier goal than to film some refraction ...

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 23, 2019, 06:28:52 AM
Quote
As I recall, when looking through it everything was upside-down, and it was a wide-body, so it was a reflector, not a refactor which I had typed above. It was a fairly wide aperture, but I don't know the details anymore. I had selected it because telescopes which collect more light are said to be better than telescopes which collect less. 500x may or may not have been usable, but that is what I recall was advertised with the eye pieces and all.

I did acquire another telescope recently, and have been considering locations for a time-lapse. An added infra-red filter would be even better to cut through the atmosphere. I do believe that should be possible to tell whether it is refraction or not through long time-lapses. The flat earth effect that many report seeing is real. Perhaps I will find a nice christian Flat Earth group near me to bear witness.

Everything would be upside down in an astronomical telescope. That is perfectly normal. You can distinguish very easily between a refractor and a reflector simply from the optics of the telescope. Does it use a mirror or a lens to collect light?

As for the 'flat Earth effect', not sure what you mean by that and if you need more guidance on how to use a telescope properly then a local astronomical society would be much more useful over a nice Christian Flat Earth group who have probably got no more experience of using telescopes than you clearly have.  What do they need to 'bare witness' to?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2019, 05:23:49 PM
Quote
Kind of a bad experiment then.  Poorly conceived.  Unrecorded and unrepeatable.

Plenty have performed the water convexity experiments with a Flat Earth result.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm - Earth Not a Globe - Many experiments, repeated by Lady Blount and others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGTsCZGHJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGTsCZGHJQ) -- "Why I'm a Flat Earther" - 37 experiments, many of which are water convexity tests. Experiments and observations discussed range from 6 miles to over a hundred miles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA) -- Pier2Pier - Dr. John D - 9.5 mi test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rWES5dJu4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rWES5dJu4) -- Flat Earth Experiment 4 Mile Test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4) -- 7.5 Mile Flat Earth Test On Frozen Lake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACaIIUKtzE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACaIIUKtzE) -- "Globe is Iced"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE) -- 9.5-mile Test Flat Earth Perth Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0) -- Salton Sea Level Observation No curvature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MmqXUeHxg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MmqXUeHxg) -- "Flat Earther proves no curvature at Salton Sea. Leaves Scientists baffled" -- Conducted in association with the Independent Investigations Group

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s&t=36s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s&t=36s) - Monterey Bay 13.3 miles

Ranty Flat Earth conducts numerous water convexity tests (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6XOkw6bHnw_tb5Iijc8LPg/videos)  on various lakes, and ocean inlets such as the Irish Sea. Ranty often sees windows and details on buildings from a distance of 18.5+ miles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUSz46h2is) away, at an elevation of 4 feet, and he is using a P1000 camera, which is inferior in light collection to larger high quality telescopes. Ranty even brings his camera down to 2 inches above the water line. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyjHExZDMV8)

Quote
Perhaps you will be a little more diligent like Bobby Shafto was, and produce some verifiable and repeatable results instead of the wiki "experiment" which wouldn't pass muster for a freshman science student.

The Flat Earth results of the water convexity experiment have been reproduced by others. If you don't believe it, you do the experiment.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 23, 2019, 08:05:31 PM
Plenty have performed the water convexity experiments with a Flat Earth result.
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXULtYRZVPw&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXULtYRZVPw&t=1s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGYvRB2WW2k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGYvRB2WW2k)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM)
Any kind of long-distance observation over water is just going to get a "yeah but refraction" answer. It's really dumb, and I'm surprised that there are some people that haven't realised this yet.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 23, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots. The fact that the effect is inconsistent and often shows that the earth is flat disproves Aristotile's proof that the earth must be a globe because of the sinking ship effect. A two-thousand year old proof is debunked. Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.

The sinking ship effect is explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Time-lapses will show the truth of the matter, of which is the real version and which version refraction is causing.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 23, 2019, 09:21:08 PM
Can anyone point to any links that are not from YouTube, Sacred Texts or FE Wiki?  Videos can easily be created and edited to suit a particular point of view, Sacred Texts is well... a bit old fashioned to say the least and FE Wiki is well... FE Wiki.

I just found this link which goes through the details of how far into the distance it is possible to see.  The article considers the situation with and without atmospheric refraction taken into account.  Based on the information contained in this page, the Welney Bridge Experiment that is described by the sacred texts link in Toms post above provides no conclusive evidence of a flat Earth.

https://aty.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 23, 2019, 09:38:24 PM
You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent. The experiment was conducted from several different spots in that area.

Tom, I have several telescopes, Celestron CPC800 and 1100, Meade LightSwitch and LX200.  To achieve 500x magnification with humanly visible optical resolution, you need a huge aperture, never produced on a refracting unit for popular use.  It would need to have a more than 10 inches of refracting glass as objective, you will not be able to carry it handy.    Also, the smaller eyepiece you can see anything from 12 years ago technology is no less than 6mm.  To have a 500x magnification such refractive telescope must have an objetive with a focal length of 3000mm (3 meters long), the whole telescope with the focuser would be longer than 3200mm. Celestron never produced such best. 

You may had a 50~70mm objective refracting unit, handly transportable, 800 to 1000m long, but it needs a nice mount (tripod), you can not use it on the floor. Somebody may stick a label with "500x" on it, but no cigar for that. That unit can give you a maximum of 200x magnification in the limit of optical resolution.  Optical resolution formula is d/1.22Lm, where d is aperture and Lm is the green light wavelength, often used on astronomy calculations. Regular 15mm~24mm objectives (popular for that telescope) can give you a somehow visible image with 40x~60x magnification.  With that magnification, a 2m tall image at 38km distance can be seen with an aparent size of around 0.02°, what is 1/20 of the size of the Moon.  It will be like watching the details of lunar crater Langrenus by naked eye, or a person as seen by naked eye 633 meters away (38000/60).  I need to admit, based on naked eye observation I can not even tell if there is a person 6 city blocks away, not even a car. 

A 22cm ball (or freesbe) has an apparent size of 1 arcsecond at 46.5km away, that is 1/1800 the size of the Moon.  My CPC1100's aperture is able to discriminate 0.5 arcsecond, so it in fact start to lose optical discrimination of a freesbe at 90km away, image fuses with surrounding photons. It means you can not recognize it as a freesbe, the wavelength of the image is higher than the size of the object, you just can actually see a different brighness fuzzy thing, nothing else.  Considering a person has similar size head, you can not even say if that fuzzy dot on top of a very tinny little stick is a person's body or a lamp pole, and that with my CPC1100  (11" mirror, schmidt cassegrain, 2800mm focal length, 85lb of weight, resolution 0.5 arcseconds, $3k) without any extra features.  Over many kilometers of water, moisture a lot, waves spraying it becomes really difficult.

Next time take pictures, from the telescope, from the scene, from the scene through the telescope with different eyepieces so you can have a progressive image magnifications.

There is an easy experiments, not even need image or photos, it uses three lasers, two powerful (minimum 1W units) red and one green lasers.  I wonder why nobody made it before.  Mount them side by side over a wooden base, green in the middle, with screw for vertical alignment.  Shot them at night over dry land against a building wall few miles away, as far as possible.  A person close to the buildings cell phone the one with the lasers, and tell him to adjust the screws for the three lasers to be aligned, no matter if they are angled or horizontal, just aligned, green as better is possible in the middle of reds.  Then go to the beach and shoot them over the 48km patch of water against a big building on the other side.  Using a cell phone tell the person with the lasers to very slowly tilt down the front of the lasers base until the spots disappears down at the receiving side, then slowly tilt it up until they appear, so you can measure the minimum altitude the lasers hit the building wall. Then, measure or estimate, how big is the difference of alignment between the green and red spots.   There will be a difference of alignment, the green laser will be lower than the reds. Red light refracts different from green on a moisture oceanic air.  By measuring the misalignment of the beams, meaning diference of refraction from red to green wavelength, we can calculate how much refraction it is actually happening in general, air density, etc.  So we can insert this variable on the minimum height of the receiving beams on the building side and calculate the correct numbers.  Another blue laser could be used together, since blue bends even more. We can not just assume the light travels straight over a patch of moisture air, it will bend down as if going through a very low density glass. This is specially pronounced over lakes, ocean, etc.  It also happens over land with less effect, the thermal difference from the ground and the air creates this cushion of moisture and warm turbulent air, it creates havoc for visible sight.  Sharpshooters know that and compensate for plain dirt terrain, moist, water, jungle, dry, rocky, sometimes even the color of the land changes everything, dark color retain more warmth and create uplift air flow.  It is very difficult to hit a 20cm target with a bullet at 1500m away, even with a supersonic projectile, they need to know and compensate for everything. That is not only compensation for the bullet travelling, it is also visual compensation on the scope, light refracts easily.

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: markjo on May 23, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.
Are you saying that inconsistent observations are proof of a flat earth?  I would contend that inconsistent observations are proof of a poorly controlled experiment and should be disregarded as inconclusive.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2019, 01:44:46 AM
Quote
Kind of a bad experiment then.  Poorly conceived.  Unrecorded and unrepeatable.

Plenty have performed the water convexity experiments with a Flat Earth result.
<snip>

An excellent attempt at diverting attention from “The Bishop Experiment”. Once you actually address what I have said, we can get in to a contest of whose YouTube videos provide the best evidence.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: inquisitive on May 24, 2019, 07:33:33 AM
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots. The fact that the effect is inconsistent and often shows that the earth is flat disproves Aristotile's proof that the earth must be a globe because of the sinking ship effect. A two-thousand year old proof is debunked. Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.

The sinking ship effect is explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Time-lapses will show the truth of the matter, of which is the real version and which version refraction is causing.
Please provide your proposals for measuring the shape and size of the earth.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 24, 2019, 02:48:35 PM
Aristotle (not Aristotile in English) and so many others used the tools they have available at the time.
Whenever technology advances we have better tools to help us to understand and live over this planet.
We first navigate by the stars, then we found the use for magnetic compass, now computerized maps and GPS.
We don't fight technology advances, we never more need to seek wood into the backyard to make a coffee, we just press a button.
We don't need to set the saddle over a horse in order to be able to deliver a letter, we press "SEND" on the browser.

Our actual tools to make the same Aristotle experiment are a little bit more advanced, like satellites and very precise atomic clocks.
For refusing such tools, one should also refuse all other new tools, like Internet, cell phone, computers, a/c, cars, fridge, freezer, coffee maker, electricity, medicine.
You can always choose to go back to the cave world.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 24, 2019, 02:53:41 PM
For a Bedford type experiment to hold any kind of scientific value it would have to be carried out under far more controlled conditions than it was possible for Rowbotham to setup. Rowbotham was clearly someone who carried out experiments with good intentions. He failed to take into consideration some error sources and causes that could make it appear that his predictions were actually right but not for the reason he wanted.

Over water for starters is not the best place to perform such an experiment as was explained in the link I posted yesterday. (anyone bothered to read through that yet as no comments posted). Ideally you would also remove any air immediately above the water surface re remove refraction effects.  Basically you need to remove any way for light to potential bend over the water surface and effectively increase straight line viewing distance.

So unless we can create a localised vacuum in that region of the Cambridgeshire Fens I think the lunar surface is our best bet.

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 24, 2019, 05:18:01 PM
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots.

I can link you to some well-above-the-water shots.

Wanna see?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 24, 2019, 05:32:33 PM
Based on lots of controversy, discussion and unreliability caused by light bending over different media density (over patches of water), ships disappearing over the horizon and such, what creates more questions than answers, I created a much more reliable experiment what I would recommend to append to Tom Bishop Experiment.  It is much more clear and concise, much less variables and doubts.

This suggestion is based on what much strongly changes from the RE to FE, the equatorial line circumference.  On RE the circumference plane is perpendicular to North Pole, it literally divides the North to South hemisphere, hypothetically you could walk straight over this RE equatorial line without making any turn left or right and end up in the same location after a very long walk.  On FE this equatorial line circumference plane is a horizontal circle on the ground, it is a flat surface, to walk over this line you need to keep turning left in a very long circle if walking eastward.  It is a completely different shape and that is what basically defines RE or FE.

It is very easy to check and verify if it is one or another, without any confusion or mishap, it shows clearly the results with a simple pole shadow line angle in reference to North Pole, as proposed on the exercise I posted on https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14748.0  (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14748.0), specifically asking Tom Bishop to answer, he just sent me to read Equinox on Wiki, as if would answer my questions, obviously it does not. 

Again, I kindly ask Tom Bishop to answer, as a FE representative with significance in this forum, with a straight and direct answer about the angles from the exercise. It is indeed a simple geometry calculation, and will finish this for once and for all.  Also, if he wants, he could append this exercise to his own experience on wiki, or, create a Spherical Exercise on FE wiki, I would appreciate very much.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on May 24, 2019, 07:08:37 PM
Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.
Sorry that I wasn't 100% clear. I think inconsistent observations are not proof for anything.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Macarios on May 25, 2019, 04:58:12 AM
There is no single proof for either.

The difference is that Flat has to make different model for each set of
observations and measurements, and Globe can present all in the single one.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 08:18:27 AM
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 25, 2019, 09:45:24 AM
It is not necessarily a matter of being unified Tom.  Science likes to make things a simple as possible and so many aspects of FET are explained much more simply and clearly (logically you might say) by RET.   In my opinion of course.   

For example take the FE explanation of lunar eclipses. To make a lunar eclipse possible in FE you need to create a non-existent (and apparently never seen) 'shadow object' where as in RET , that object is actually the Moon itself.  Just presenting an example that's all.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Macarios on May 25, 2019, 03:02:26 PM
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.

Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?
Geostationary orbit?
South celestial pole?
Midnight sun in Antarctica?
Aurora Australis?
Seismic waves?
Map of the world?
Hurricanes and Cyclones?
Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Apparent horizon dip?
...
Shall I continue?

Here, on this forum, there was one simple question asked several times by several people and still not answered:

How high is Sun in Flat model?

Globe model has the value consistent.

Flat model has this:
Quote
We know that Sun travels 15 degrees per hour, measured from observer from any place, any time of a day.
If one doesn't believe that, they can go wherever they want and check it out.
Every place on Earth has clear days when Sun is visible to everyone.

Distance from North Pole to Tropic of Cancer is measured to be 7389 km.
It gives the circumference of 46 426 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on summer solstice.
It is 1934 km/h.
967 km in 30 min.

Distance from North Pole to Equator is 10 000km.
(At the beginning Meter was defined as 10 millionth part of the distance from North Pole through Paris to Equator.)
It gives the circumference of 62 832 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on Equinoxes.
It is 2618 km/h.
1309 km in 30 min.

Distance from North Pole to Tropic of Capricorn is measured to be 12 611 km.
It gives the circumference of 79 237 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on winter solstice.
It is 3302 km/h.
1651 km in 30 min.

For Summer Solstice:
standing at Tropic of Cancer at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 967 / tan(7.5) = 7345 km.

For Equinox:
standing at Equator at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 1309 / tan(7.5) = 9943 km.

For Winter Solstice:
standing at Tropic of Capricorn at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 1651 / tan(7.5) = 12541 km.

What is the real altitude of Sun?
Why is south almost equally hot in December as north is in June, if Sun there is almost twice higher at the corresponding time?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 25, 2019, 03:34:23 PM
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.
Just because you get different explanations, that doesn't mean the theory isn't unified. People may not all understand it, but that doesn't mean the explanation isn't consistent amongst people who actually do understand it.
The eclipse shadow thread is a good example. There is admittedly some confusion in that thread but that's because the actual answer is complicated and somewhat counter-intuitive. But as I've managed to finally explain there is an answer which works perfectly well in RE, given that the eclipse path can now be calculated down to the city block (not something you could do with just "patterns"), there is clearly a consistent theory or how eclipses work and a map which works.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 25, 2019, 03:40:05 PM
Quote
Name something you think is unified in FET

Conversely, name me one aspect of FET that all FE'ers are agreed on.  There seems to be so many different models. Moreover, please point out any aspect of FET which provides a more simple and logical account for a real world observation than RET does.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 04:33:23 PM
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes. Multiple interpretations depending on method.

Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the Venus method.

Copernicus' method computes the distance to the Sun as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler's method gives 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Stars

Theories about stellar distances continually change, and are based on slight color variations. RE cosmology is a mess (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14718.0) without coherent unified theories and multiple contradicting and non-working models

>>Aurora Australis?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002154155.htm

Quote
An aurora borealis (aurora australis in the Southern Hemisphere) is precipitated by explosions on the surface of the sun, sometimes starting as solar flares.

..."We are nearing the solar maximum, which is when the sun is at its most active," he said. Solar maximums come around every 11 years, but no one knows why.

"No one knows why"

>>Seismic waves?

Multiple models, based on assumption:

"Many seismic wave models are based on an erroneous assumption about the Earth's interior. A new technique corrects this by eliminating false signals produced by models." (https://eos.org/research-spotlights/seismological-models-are-biased-but-scientists-have-a-solution)

"Here Bezada et al. assessed just how much this assumption leads to disparities between predictions and observations."

>>Map of the world?

The mapping systems are based on small flat maps. (https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984) Not a "globe".

>>Hurricanes and Cyclones?

Coriolis Effect not needed (https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather)) for the Tropical Cyclones. Most wind and water systems are turning the wrong way.

>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?

Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

Article: "Why is the southern hemisphere hotter than northern hemisphere? (https://addictlist.com/story/addictlist/why-southern-hemisphere-is-more-hotter-than-northern-hemisphere)"

>>Apparent horizon dip?

The horizon dip is much different (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Electromagnetic_Acceleration) than the RE predicts.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 25, 2019, 05:03:40 PM
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes.
No it doesn't.
Obviously over time our calculations of it have changed as science has become more mature and tools to measure it have become more advanced. That is literally how science works. Ideas are tested and revised as methods and ideas become mature.
It's like saying "you guys can't make up your mind, first you thought the earth was at the centre of the universe, then you said the sun is, then you said the sun is going round the centre of the galaxy..."
Yes. That is how science works. As we learn more our ideas develop. But for over 2000 years now we've known we live on a sphere and that hasn't changed once.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 05:15:46 PM
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes.
No it doesn't.
Obviously over time our calculations of it have changed as science has become more mature and tools to measure it have become more advanced. That is literally how science works. Ideas are tested and revised as methods and ideas become mature.
It's like saying "you guys can't make up your mind, first you thought the earth was at the centre of the universe, then you said the sun is, then you said the sun is going round the centre of the galaxy..."
Yes. That is how science works. As we learn more our ideas develop. But for over 2000 years now we've known we live on a sphere and that hasn't changed once.

Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 25, 2019, 05:25:15 PM
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.

So if I have two objects, and three people measure distance between them - one uses a laser measure, and gets 92.75 cm, another uses a single tape measure calibrated in millimetres, so gets 92.80 cm, and another holds a rigid metre stick to them to arrive at 92.70 cm.

So what if they're slightly different? They are consistent within reasonable bounds of error.

Do you take this inconsistency as proof of anything?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 05:27:41 PM
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.

So if I have two objects, and three people measure distance between them - one uses a laser measure, and gets 92.75 cm, another uses a single tape measure calibrated in millimetres, so gets 92.80 cm, and another holds a rigid metre stick to them to arrive at 92.70 cm.

So what if they're slightly different? They are consistent within reasonable bounds of error.

Do you take this inconsistency as proof of anything?

It's not the same method that has been incrementally improved over time with better technology. The Venus method for the sun's distance gives a much different value to the Half Moon method. Astronomers have tried many different methods, with contradicting results.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 25, 2019, 05:29:00 PM
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.
Yes. Aristarchus lived over 2000 years ago.
As science develops methods get refined, some methods are shown to be flawed and more accurate measurements are made.
Are there any scientists arguing about the distance to the sun now?
You lot are but, with respect, you aren't scientists.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 05:31:17 PM
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.
Yes. Aristarchus lived over 2000 years ago.

We still use geometry and triangulation methods from 2000 years ago. They knew how to measure angles. The efforts of determining the distance to the sun was ongoing for thousands of years and was of prime importance. No one "improved" on those methods, to create a self-consistent model showing a consistent distance with multiple methods. One method says this, another says that. Your accusation that no one knew how to measure angles is farcical and wrong.

Those examples are given as failures of astronomers to come up with a coherent model. Try a different method to determine the Sun's distance and you will get a different result.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2019, 05:54:18 PM
You guys took Tom’s bait and switch. This is about how The Bishop “Experiment” is a piece of trash. Stay on that and not his silly cherry picking of sources.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 05:55:05 PM
You guys took Tom’s bait and switch. This is about how The Bishop “Experiment” is a piece of trash. Stay on that and not his silly cherry picking of sources.

If you don't believe the results of these experiments, you do it. Have you done the water convexity experiment? What result did you get?

Show that your observations match precisely RET and nothing else. Your reference is Bobby's observations which saw sunken results, as Rowbotham states would happen and predicts when performing it over the open ocean. But those results did not see a RE, and changed every day an observation was made. He often saw things which should not be seen, and the amount hidden changed constantly, showing that the matter is an illusion, and not your cherished curvature. Other threads have continuously shown that the sinking effect changes wildly and only rarely gets close to a RE prediction.

Your proof involves data which contradicts itself. The sinking ship effect is not evidence for a globe at all.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2019, 06:39:39 PM
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 06:45:09 PM
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2019, 07:16:58 PM
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.

So then... you’ve never made a Foucault pendulum, stop trying to discredit those. You’ve never done any tests of relativity, stop trying to discredit those. Is that how this works?

Evidence of fact is presented to you all the time in the form of video footage from the ISS. This is why you have to assert that space travel doesn’t exist. Remember?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2019, 07:34:56 PM
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.

So then... you’ve never made a Foucault pendulum, stop trying to discredit those. You’ve never done any tests of relativity, stop trying to discredit those. Is that how this works?

Evidence of fact is presented to you all the time in the form of video footage from the ISS. This is why you have to assert that space travel doesn’t exist. Remember?

If you are referring to the Wiki articles on those subjects, none of the Wiki calls those experiments lies or shabby whatever you are doing here, based on opinion. Sources are given from the public and scientific criticisms of the pendulum experiment. Various investigators and scientists are calling it into question becaus of their contradictory experience.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

None of the Wiki gives an opinion, and is merely a collection of sources The opinions are from third parties. The possibility of Mach's Principle is even described at the end, which is contradictory to the sources which say that the experiment is unreliable.

Feel free to start your own website and collect your own data, to show that the FP is overwhelmingly reliable and accurate. Again, you come to us with opinion in the face of numerous sources for a position.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Macarios on May 25, 2019, 07:37:19 PM
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes. Multiple interpretations depending on method.

Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the Venus method.

Copernicus' method computes the distance to the Sun as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler's method gives 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Distance to the Sun changes because of the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, no more, no less.
The value varies between 147.1 and 152.1 million kilometers (149.6 million kilometers ± 1.67%).

It can be measured any time and the results are consistent wherever in the world you are while measuring it.

Stars

Theories about stellar distances continually change, and are based on slight color variations. RE cosmology is a mess (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14718.0) without coherent unified theories and multiple contradicting and non-working models

There are farther stars whose distances were adjusted by certain percentage with more precise measurements,
but the distance to Alpha Centauri is consistently 4.3 ly, to Sirius 8.66 ly, to Epsilon Eridani 10.45 ly and so on...

Show me any consistent method to measure / calculate distance to, say, Polaris from anywhere in the world.
You can imagine Flat model and calculate what results you can get from different places, then do the same imagining Globe model.
Take, for instance, measurements from 20, from 40 and from 60 degrees north and see how big differences you get in which model.

>>Aurora Australis?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002154155.htm

Quote
An aurora borealis (aurora australis in the Southern Hemisphere) is precipitated by explosions on the surface of the sun, sometimes starting as solar flares.

..."We are nearing the solar maximum, which is when the sun is at its most active," he said. Solar maximums come around every 11 years, but no one knows why.

"No one knows why"

It is obvious from what YOU typed that "nobody knows why Solar Maximums come" not why Aurora Australis occurs.
Aurora Australis and Aurora Borealis are caused by the same thing: ionized particles from the Sun get caught into Earth's magnetic field and excite the air around poles where they shower.
That part is well known.

>>Seismic waves?

Multiple models, based on assumption:

"Many seismic wave models are based on an erroneous assumption about the Earth's interior. A new technique corrects this by eliminating false signals produced by models." (https://eos.org/research-spotlights/seismological-models-are-biased-but-scientists-have-a-solution)

"Here Bezada et al. assessed just how much this assumption leads to disparities between predictions and observations."

General principles are still the same, this is good example of non-dogmatic approach: corrections in the light of the new data.
If the Flat model were more useful seismologists would use it regardless of the shape of the Earth. They just want the job done.

>>Map of the world?

The mapping systems are based on small flat maps. (https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984) Not a "globe".

Small flat maps are based on general measurements that show bigger picture, it is well known and is used to locate more precise details.
You don't have paper big enough to put more fine resolution details on the same sheet together.


>>Hurricanes and Cyclones?

Coriolis Effect not needed (https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather)) for the Tropical Cyclones. Most wind and water systems are turning the wrong way.

I don't see how that piece of Wiki explains why northern swirls never cross to the south or southern never cros to the north.

>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?

Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

Article: "Why is the southern hemisphere hotter than northern hemisphere? (https://addictlist.com/story/addictlist/why-southern-hemisphere-is-more-hotter-than-northern-hemisphere)"

Actually:
Quote
The NH is warmer than the SH by 1.25 °C in the annual mean.
(from: http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf (http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf), Page 5.)

Northern hemisphere:
- 60.7% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 39.3% land surface (easier to warm up)
Southern hemisphere:
- 80.9% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 19.1% land surface (easier to warm up)

Plus, percentage of CO2 (greenhouse gas) in Northern hemisphere is higher.
Plus, in Flat Earth model the whole southern 'hemisphere' is 3 times bigger, while receiving "the same" amount of heat.
Plus thermal conductivity between surface and hot magma core, but Flat model denies core, so we will ignore it.

And yet, Southern hemisphere is, in total balance, cooler by mere 1.25 Celsius (2.25 Fahrenheit).

>>Apparent horizon dip?

The horizon dip is much different (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Electromagnetic_Acceleration) than the RE predicts.

Globe model "predicts":
- theoretical value that doesn't account for any refraction
- theoretical value that accounts for "standard" (most commonly expected) refraction
- practical value that can be measured, therefore exists

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flat model claims that "horizon always raise to the eye level" which means there is none.

Practical measures (including the one that you pointed out) show that THERE IS horizon dip.

Thanks for your patience.

P.S.: So, how high (and how fast) is the Sun in Flat model and how can it be measured? Anyone figured it out in the last 2500 years?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 25, 2019, 07:59:47 PM
>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

How come SH can be hotter in FE, if the land area the Sun must cover during its same 24h is much wider than the NH, where the radiation concentration  per km² would be higher?

Total FE area = r²xPI = 20000²xPI = 1256636000 km²
NH area = r²xPI = 10000²xPI = 314159000 km²
SH area = TotalArea - NHArea = 1256636000 - 314159000 = 942477000 km²

Total FE Area = 1.256 E+9
NH Area  = 3.141 E+8
SH Area  = 9.424 E+9

FE SH area is in fact 30 times larger than NH
How come SH can become hotter than NH, or even the same?

For FE SH temperature to be the same as FE NH, the FE Sun would need to be 30 times hotter in January.   If you are referring to perihelion, when Earth is closer to the Sun in January, it is not very significative, as a matter of fact, the atmosphere temperature is opposed, it even helps FE with 4°C...  ;)  when global temperature is even lower in January.  So, the FE solar temperature is not logical, not true to the real thing.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Surface_air_temperature_global.jpg/350px-Surface_air_temperature_global.jpg)

For the ones that didn't get it yet, if you pass your hand very close over a candle flame it may burn, or not, it only depends on how fast your hand moves.  In the FE January, the Sun needs to cover 30 times more km² per second than it covers the Northern Hemisphere in July, so it moves faster, radiating less energy per km² to the land on January than on July when it moves slower.  Even needing to cover 30 times more land, the land temperature is almost the same on both hemispheres.

Lets calculate:
FE say on July the Sun is circling Earth every (lets round to) 24 hours, right over the Tropic of Cancer, at 23°26' North.
FE say on January the Sun is circling Earth during the same period of time, over the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23°26' South.

Considering FE disc to have 180° from North Pole to Ice Wall:
Tropic of Cancer is at 23°.26' (23.4333°) North from Equator, means 66.566° from North Pole.
Tropic of Capricorn is at 23.4333° South of Equator, means 113.433° from North Pole.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Cancer on July will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 66.566/180, 20000 km x 66.566 / 180 = 7396km
Tropic of Cancer circumference = 7396 x 2 x 3.14159 = 46471 km.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Capricorn on January will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 113.433 /180, 20000 km x 113.433 / 180 = 12603km
Tropic of Capricorn circumference = 12603 x 2 x 3.14159 = 79191 km

Now;
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Cancer is 46471 km / 24h = 1936.3 km/h
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Capricorn is 79191 km / 24h = 3299.6 km/h

The speed difference is 3299.6 / 1936.3 = 1.7x
(I will not even question what makes the Sun accelerate or break speed and change circling diameter)

Means, the FE Sun runs 1.7x faster over the Tropic of Capricorn than over the Tropic of Cancer.
It simply means that the Northern Hemisphere solar speed would spread 70% more radiation per second than to Southern Hemisphere.
This is not true in the real world, the NH is NOT 70% hotter than SH.
Also, the above calculations should take in consideration just radiation per second, not radiation per squared area of land.

On the top of this post, I considered squared area land, and came to 30x less radiation per km² in the South than in the North.
What it is again, not true in the real world. 

The actually measured solar radiation energy in average, between tropics to be 1kW/m². Based on the 70% difference of solar radiation per km² on FE, if measured 1kW/m² in Rio de Janeiro (what is real), then a person living on Central Florida would receive 1.7kW/m², that is not true, it will be cooking everything on land.

Other important thing, consider the sun speeding 1.7 faster on the Tropic of Capricorn, it means people on the Southern Hemisphere would notice the Sun moving 70% faster on January sky, shadows on ground moving 70% faster, etc.  This is also not true.

Based on FE perspective, vanish point and "can not see far due atmosphere not being transparent", the Sun would disappear from southern sky on January 70% faster than on July on North.   If on the North we can see the Sun during 12 hours on July, then on the South we will see the Sun only for 3.6 hours on January, what is also not true.

There is a lot of "Not True" on the text above.
Thanks for bringing this subject to my attention.
This is one more item FE must address and explain on Wiki, will be very difficult if not impossible.

Below a comprehensive FE map about tropics circumferences and Sun's speed over them
(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/tropics.jpg)

Below a FE horizontal view in two situations, Figure1 and Figure 2 are proportional to FE diameter, Sun's altitude, tropics diameter.

Figure 1 is the Sun circling over Tropic of Cancer (July), smaller diameter. 
Figure2 is the Sun circling Tropic of Capricorn (January), larger diameter.   
Both observers, living under such tropic can see the Sun raise from the horizon and set at the horizon.

Based on FE mechanics, the Sun at 4800km of altitude never really gets to touch the horizon, but FE explains the observer actually see the Sun setting and disappearing below the horizon due perspective, vanishing point and atmosphere not being transparent, and also possible use of atmospheric refraction, not allowing to see far. 

Based on this FE statements the Figure1 allows to understand the observer can only see the Sun on sky within an angle of only 113°, below that it will be under the horizon. But Figure2 with the Sun at the same altitude, the angle is much larger, 139° for the same effect to take place.  The only possible FE explanation is that on the southern hemisphere you can see farther, perspective and vanishing point works differently, and the atmosphere is more transparent, with less refraction.

The other complication is about the visible time of the Sun during the day.  Both observers can see the sun more than, but lets assume only 12 hours on both tropics, Cancer on July, Capricorn on January.  Now lets divide the angular view of the sun in the sky during 12 hours.   For the observer of Tropic of Cancer, the Sun travels 113/12 = 9.41° per hour in average, but we know that is not true, so it must be 9.41°/h from 10am to 2pm  and fantastically speed up at raise and set to reach the apparent position close to horizon.   For the observer on the Tropic of Capricorn, will be 139/12 = 11.6°/h, with also non linear angular speed during the day.

Interesting fact that on RE we can actually measure a very linear and steady solar angular speed of 15°/h all the way from raise to set, and the solar visibility on both tropics are the same, not different visibility angles (both are 180°), not different atmospheric visibility.

I wonder if FE could produce and post explanations on Wiki, using at least images better than mines, with scientific facts, numbers, angles.

Just to clarify, the observers on Figure1 and 2 are not on the North Pole, they are somewhere over its tropic circle.   The three suns over the observer represent the sun at 6am, noon and 6pm.

(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/visibility.jpg)

Also, we can actually predict on RE, exactly when the Sun will raise and set, within seconds, due its extreme easy mechanics of a round Earth and heliocentric system. 

The FE explanations about the sunrise and sunset rely on atmospheric conditions of visibility and refraction.  All of this can change by temperature, moisture, cold/warm wind and climatic conditions that can change at any time, would dramatically change the position of the FE sun on the horizon, not being possible to predict with precision when it would happens.

I also would like to hear from FE how those sunrise and sunset can be precisely predicted under so much optical challenging situations. 
This whole post is completely relative to Tom's statement that SH is hotter, I proved mathematically above FE SH is 30x cooler per km², not hotter.

I sincerely expect someday for some FEr to answer those questions, since I feel I am writing to a brick wall.   

 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: ChrisTP on May 25, 2019, 08:06:52 PM
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.
Tom, you call NASA experiments and missions fake or incorrect but since you have yet to do these things yourself I guess you're in no position to claim they're faked or that their data is incorrect. You have zero data of your own in regards to being out in space except your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence or fact.

This is called double standards.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 25, 2019, 08:38:04 PM
If you don't believe the results of these experiments, you do it. Have you done the water convexity experiment? What result did you get?

Your proof involves data which contradicts itself. The sinking ship effect is not evidence for a globe at all.

What experiments have you actually done, Tom, apart from "The Tom Bishop Experiment"?

What did you do, when did you do them, what were the results, and where are your results recorded?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 25, 2019, 08:48:08 PM
You guys took Tom’s bait and switch. This is about how The Bishop “Experiment” is a piece of trash. Stay on that and not his silly cherry picking of sources.

Back to Rama’s point. “The Bishop Experiment” is not an experiment, it’s anecdotal at best. It's basically a modernized retelling of the introductory fable in SBR’s ENAG Experiment II:

"The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described.”

The similarities are quite striking:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.”

SBR: when lying on the ice, with a good telescope...
TB: With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach...

SBR: observed persons skating and sliding...
TB: see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing…

If I were to retell the story from my perspective would it be worthy of calling it “The Stack Experiment” or would it just be considered some opinion piece with zero substantiation or evidence?

“Even on a very clear and chilly day it is not possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it was not possible to see what I imagined were people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. From a much closer vantage point one could assume the entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I couldn’t see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I couldn't see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I couldn't see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach wasn't visible, just the blue of the bay waters as earth’s curve was in my way.”
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on May 26, 2019, 03:40:34 PM
I need to admit, there are several similarities on both texts, the use of same words and figurative expressions.   I also question about being flat on the ground on stomach, with a good telescope of 500x magnification? Telescope body was touching the ground?  I would not dare for the world to approximate my "good" optics from beach salty sand spray, even over a towel.  People don't do that even with photo cameras.  Tiny salty sand particles in suspension will stick to the lens, it needs special washing solution afterwards to remove it without scratching the lens coating, irreparable damage.  Of course, an astonishing finding like that is like front facing a hovering alien spaceship, when you knew it was there, took a telescope to see the aliens better, but simply forgot photo camera to take some evidencial pictures.   If I would experience such features, I would become millionaire for taking only 10 good focused sharp pictures, each with a different eyepiece to prove the sequential objective lens optical resolution, camera date/time on pictures and a GPS compass to prove my position.  Anyone would admit, a picture from domestic telescope showing kids playing with frisbee across a 48km patch of water would worth a fantastic reputation and at least good money.  Not even talking about the water spray, waves, evaporation, moisture in the air.  Of course, a picture is better than a million words. 

I recalculate here, to get into the optical resolution and visibly discriminate a very tiny person from a light pole 48km away, you need to "bring" that person close to 200m at naked eye, this means a minimum magnification of 240x, using a smaller possible eyepiece of 9mm it will require an objective with focal distance of 2160mm, being refractor telescope, it will have a body length of more than 90 inches (2.3m), with a minimum aperture of 150mm (6"), 1 arcsecond resolution, focal ratio f/14, that would be a really heavy and bulky tube.  The best powerful refractor Celestron produced recently was the Advanced VX6", just the tube is 8.3kg (19 lbs), computerized, $1500+, even so the objective focal distance (1200mm) is too short for this endeavor, it will need a 5mm eyepiece, trust me, you didn't have that.  I know dozens of astronomers with green expensive optical equipment, only few have an eyepiece like that, last weekend my neighbor Barney bought a 4.7mm TeleVue Ethos SX, cost more than $600.  This eyepiece with low focal point are only used in deep space observation, something that I guess Tom is not really interested.  The most common eyepieces delivered along with regular telescopes are 24, 25 or 40mm, even with the VX6 it means an image magnification of 50, 48 and 30x.  The 24mm would bring the kids playing frisbee to 960m (2880ft or 6/10 of a mile) at naked eye, think about it, can you discriminate a frisbee at 6/10 of a mile away? that is around 9 city blocks away.  Really, a picture taken directly at the ocular would be fantastic.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: junker on May 27, 2019, 04:21:44 AM
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots. The fact that the effect is inconsistent and often shows that the earth is flat disproves Aristotile's proof that the earth must be a globe because of the sinking ship effect. A two-thousand year old proof is debunked. Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.

The sinking ship effect is explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Time-lapses will show the truth of the matter, of which is the real version and which version refraction is causing.
Please provide your proposals for measuring the shape and size of the earth.

FYI, this post was reported by an RET proponent for being off-topic. I tend to agree. You are already on two bans and have had a warning in the last week, so let's take a month off this time.

You seem to have the record for most warnings in FES history without being perma banned.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 27, 2019, 01:49:41 PM
That Celestron scope you mention (Advanced VX6) looks like a bog standard 6" f8 achromat. The Advanced VX is part refers to the mount. I had a 6" f8 TMB triplet apo until recently.  A scope I bought used for £5,500. One of the best I have ever used I have to say.

There is of course no single 'one for all' telescope on the market.  Longer focal length catadioptrics (SCTs/Maks) tend to be more favoured for planets where as short focal length Newts are favoured for deep sky.  Fast 60/100mm apos when used in conjunction with DSLRs offer good performance on wide field imaging.

I completely concur with your comments re the Ethos eyepiece. I have two myself - the 21mm and the 13mm.  Never heard of an Ethos SX mind.  Maybe it is a one addition to the Ethos range.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 28, 2019, 05:54:29 PM
We still use geometry and triangulation methods from 2000 years ago. They knew how to measure angles.
Did they have these tools to help them?

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-most-precise-and-accurate-method-for-measurement-of-angle

Obviously they knew how to measure angles to a certain accuracy but they didn't have the tools we have now to do so with the accuracy we can now.
This is a good article which goes through some of the different ways the distance to the sun was calculated over history

https://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html

And it's not that different methods gave different answers because the whole model is flawed. It's that all the methods had potential for error, over time those methods improved and we got closer to the true distance.

If the earth is flat and it's as close as you suppose then by triangulation. You should be able to calculate it accurately for yourself. All you need is a few people known distances apart and take some observations. Have you done this? Has anyone? I've asked this a few times on here and never had a straight answer.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 06:20:43 PM
You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent...

A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

Not that it makes a difference. It's just testimonial.  Not "experimental evidence."

Now, the QE2019 and Flat Reality Earth Explorers documented a successful signal mirror sun reflection from about 5 ft above the Salton Sea across a distance of 17.5 miles. Documented with video from an IR-modified P900. Pretty impressive. But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline. 

I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy. I've given up on it, and I find the continued inclusion of it in the Wiki to be simply an homage to the Society's most intrepid globe critic.

(Yes, I still lurk sometimes.)
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 07:03:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

It might have been an Orion. I've had both. What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?

I thought you said that we could easily see the ocean cut into the land if we just scan across the bay? It shouldn't matter if it is too muddy at the time of viewing. At 3 feet the opposite bay 23 miles away should be hidden by about 290 feet. At 10 feet per story, that's a 29 story building. There are no skyscrapers in Santa Cruz.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 28, 2019, 07:25:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?
If it's the video I'm thinking about then I saw some analysis which showed those cars were on a flyover, not on a road on the ground.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 28, 2019, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

It might have been an Orion. I've had both. What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?

I thought you said that we could easily see the ocean cut into the land if we just scan across the bay? It shouldn't matter if it is too muddy at the time of viewing. At 3 feet the opposite bay 23 miles away should be hidden by about 290 feet. At 10 feet per story, that's a 29 story building. There are no skyscrapers in Santa Cruz.

This from you regarding a recent discussion around radio/radar wave propagation distance and the atmosphere. Seems relevant here:

If you admit that there is no physical evidence for the matter then it is merely a story. No evidence. None.

No evidence = Trash science

Go back to school and learn that science requires experimental verification for hypothesis. It is called the Scientific Method.

"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence. None. "No evidence = Trash science," in your own words. Why it's referenced in the wiki under the heading "Experimental Evidence" is beyond me. It really should be removed from the wiki.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
Quote
"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence.

Actually, claims and accounts are evidence.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2019, 08:23:11 PM
Claims absolutely do not count as evidence. Evidence is what you need to support a claim. Accounts are evidence as long as they are verifiable and not pleasant anecdotes. You know, like the Bishop “Experiment”.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 08:25:14 PM
What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?
If I'd have used it in citing "evidence" for some extraordinary claim, I'd sure as heck remember.


You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?
Those vehicles weren't on the beach. The highway is higher.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?
No.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 28, 2019, 08:25:22 PM
Quote
"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence.

Actually, claims and accounts are evidence.

Not according to you. Must be physical evidence, not claims or accounts:

If you admit that there is no physical evidence for the matter then it is merely a story. No evidence. None.

The Bishop Experiment admittedly has no physical evidence therefore it is merely a story. No evidence. None. Ergo, No evidence = Trash science. Your words, not mine.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 09:15:44 PM
Wrong again. Claims and accounts are evidence. No one is throwing away the experiments Newton used to derive F=MA because he didn't have YouTube videos.

If you want some YouTube reproduction of the flat earth water convexity experiments, they are right here:

Quote
Kind of a bad experiment then.  Poorly conceived.  Unrecorded and unrepeatable.

Plenty have performed the water convexity experiments with a Flat Earth result.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm - Earth Not a Globe - Many experiments, repeated by Lady Blount and others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGTsCZGHJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGTsCZGHJQ) -- "Why I'm a Flat Earther" - 37 experiments, many of which are water convexity tests. Experiments and observations discussed range from 6 miles to over a hundred miles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA) -- Pier2Pier - Dr. John D - 9.5 mi test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rWES5dJu4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rWES5dJu4) -- Flat Earth Experiment 4 Mile Test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4) -- 7.5 Mile Flat Earth Test On Frozen Lake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACaIIUKtzE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACaIIUKtzE) -- "Globe is Iced"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE) -- 9.5-mile Test Flat Earth Perth Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0) -- Salton Sea Level Observation No curvature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MmqXUeHxg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MmqXUeHxg) -- "Flat Earther proves no curvature at Salton Sea. Leaves Scientists baffled" -- Conducted in association with the Independent Investigations Group

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s&t=36s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s&t=36s) - Monterey Bay 13.3 miles

Ranty Flat Earth conducts numerous water convexity tests (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6XOkw6bHnw_tb5Iijc8LPg/videos)  on various lakes, and ocean inlets such as the Irish Sea. Ranty often sees windows and details on buildings from a distance of 18.5+ miles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUSz46h2is) away, at an elevation of 4 feet, and he is using a P1000 camera, which is inferior in light collection to larger high quality telescopes. Ranty even brings his camera down to 2 inches above the water line. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyjHExZDMV8)

Quote
Perhaps you will be a little more diligent like Bobby Shafto was, and produce some verifiable and repeatable results instead of the wiki "experiment" which wouldn't pass muster for a freshman science student.

The Flat Earth results of the water convexity experiment have been reproduced by others. If you don't believe it, you do the experiment.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2019, 09:31:14 PM
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 09:36:15 PM
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

Because if you don't believe that Newton did an experiment then that assertion is easily countered with reference to others who also claimed to see similar things.

Quote
As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

No one said that they were controlled. We can often see further than we should, which is contrary to the 2000 year old sinking ship proof that we live on a ball.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

Because if you don't believe that Newton did an experiment then that assertion is easily countered with reference to others who also claimed to see similar things.

Fortunately we have a mountain of experiments done in controlled circumstances and the results pour in every time a grade 9 student takes a science class.

Quote
As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

No one said that they were controlled. We can often see further than we should, which is contrary to the 2000 year old sinking ship proof that we live on a ball.
[/quote]

Not controlled and not in a laboratory, good. Do we ignore them or allow them? If we allow them, then you have negated your own objection against astronomy.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 10:03:07 PM
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance. And yet you, Tom, say you did it often; anytime you had your doubts.

Every level alignment observation I've made suggests a convex surface. As impressive as a 17-mile mirror flash was, it's still not proving flat. I've done a 800' to 400' mirror test through thick haze over a 20 mile span with a small 3"×5" mirror. But the surface level record, on a clear day, with a 12"x48" mirror is only 17.5 miles. Is that "farther than it should" on a 3959 mile radius globe with an atmosphere? Maybe. But there are ways it could happen. Or maybe the globe is larger and the convexity less.

Do the mirror test across Monterey Bay from Santa Cruz. If you can play the "shouldn't be able to see" game then I'll play the "should be able to see" counter game. If there are atmospheric reasons why you can't see forever on a flat earth, there are atmospheric reasons why we can, sometimes, see farther than on a globe with no atmosphere.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 10:13:46 PM
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance.

Yes you did. Here you are claiming to see the details on antennas and trees which were over 44 miles away, which is about twice the distance being discussed:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/25qvel3.jpg)

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/qqbhwn.jpg)

View point: ~25' @ 32.847335, -117.278439 (https://goo.gl/maps/2Q6Dp9ZErw82)

End point: 840-900' @ 32.847335, -117.278439 (https://goo.gl/maps/pNUieiJQWSS2)

None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2019, 10:21:29 PM
Tom, seeing further than predicted by geodesy, provided you have eliminated all possible sources of error, is not evidence for a FE.  That’s just wishful thinking by you.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 28, 2019, 10:25:37 PM
This 'Bishop Experiment' covers a distance of only just over 40 miles.  That proves nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.  Atmospheric refraction of light near the surface, and particularly over water can make distant objects or landmarks visible over potentially much longer distances.  Over 100km have been recorded under the right conditions.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2019, 10:31:01 PM
The distance is about 23 miles, not 40 miles. "Over 100km has been recorded in the right conditions..." It sounds like the sinking ship proof that you guys have used for thousands of years is pretty fallacious then, if it is inconsistent and people can often see further than they should.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2019, 10:32:13 PM
Good thing we have direct observations from orbit! 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 10:40:05 PM
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

Yes you did.
You then proceed to show me an example of when I DIDN'T see as far as I should if the earth was flat.

Do you see the beach in San Onofre in that imagery? I dont. If the earth was flat, I should  be able to see the coastline, and not just a hill higher up and farther away.

(That sighting, btw, maps to a globe earth with atmosphere. I don't live on a geometric spheroid with no air density gradient. But that's not the point. Maybe I do. Maybe the globe has a radius of 10,000 miles and that hill SHOULD be visible geometrically. The point is it isnt flat because I'm not seeing all that I should if the earth is truly flat. This is your argument turned around. Do you see that? Showing that something can be seen that supposedly shouldn't be seen if a globe doesn't logically mean the earth is flat. That sighting suggests convexity, not flatness.)
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 10:55:17 PM
Another example of not seeing what should be seen if earth is flat:

In JTolan's now famous image of Mt San Jacinto taken from 120-ish miles away in Malibu, I can't see the Chino Hills at around 55-60 miles that should be visible if earth is flat. The elevation of the Del Rey bluffs just east of Santa Monica about 20 miles away from Malibu aren't tall enough to obscure the Chino Hills 55-60 miles away if earth's surface is a plane. Can't call it "dirty air" or "convergence zone" or "compression."

The foothills and shoulder of San Jacinto mountain are missing too. It's summit appears at a declined angle from where it should be if earth is flat.

You can do the "we can sometimes see farther than we should if earth is a globe" but I can more often say we can't see what we should if earth is flat.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 28, 2019, 11:14:10 PM
Quote
The distance is about 23 miles, not 40 miles.

No Tom I'm pretty sure that if you re-check the measurement distance to the right of Dana Point it says just over 44 miles.

Would I expect you to cast doubt on any claims about long distance effects of atmospheric refraction that in turn put the 'Bishop Experiment' into question about proving a flat surface?  No...  wouldn't dream of it?!?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 28, 2019, 11:20:18 PM
The claimed Bishop Observation was 23 miles from Monterey to Santa Cruz.

My observation in that graphic was 44 miles from La Jolla to San Clemente.

Different.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2019, 11:28:55 PM
It sounds like the sinking ship proof that you guys have used for thousands of years is pretty fallacious then, if it is inconsistent and people can often see further than they should.

If someone observes over land, sighting over two objects of known height to a third, also of known height, then it's no longer a "sinking ship proof", is it ... ?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 28, 2019, 11:29:07 PM
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance.

Yes you did. Here you are claiming to see the details on antennas and trees which were over 44 miles away, which is about twice the distance being discussed:

View point: ~25' @ 32.847335, -117.278439 (https://goo.gl/maps/2Q6Dp9ZErw82)

End point: 840-900' @ 32.847335, -117.278439 (https://goo.gl/maps/pNUieiJQWSS2)

"None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction."

To Bobby's point:

"You can do the "we can sometimes see farther than we should if earth is a globe" but I can more often say we can't see what we should if earth is flat.": The crazy part is there's, in this example, about 50' we shouldn't see with geometric RET prediction. But there's 850' we should see with geometric FET prediction.

With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown. But I ask FET, where in the heck is the other 850' I should see on a flat earth?

(https://i.imgur.com/aIwGx9q.png?1)
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2019, 11:46:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxySjGw-bEQ

None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction.

The Forth Bridge (the original rail bridge, the one seen in the thumbnail) is above the base of the mast.

None of that bridge should be above the base of the mast, in a geometric FET prediction. 

Camera at 226m, looking to the mast base 299m at Cocklaw, but the bridge, 110m above high water, 137m above foundations, intrudes on the sightline.

How could it do this, if the Earth is genuinely flat? 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:02:14 AM
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. The amount of the Twisting Tower sinking scenes were not consistent with a globe, nor anything else we have looked at. You claim that observations of sinking prove a round earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions, none of which match your geometric model.

"There is an illusion there, but the underlying reality is Round Earth!!"
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:06:55 AM
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:07:59 AM
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

You are arguing "Round Earth is right! An illusion did it!"

You just admitted it: Your argument is on basis of illusions. Whatever is missing on a FE is gone to the illusions you claim we are looking at.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:11:31 AM
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

You are arguing "Round Earth is right! An illusion did it!"

You just admitted it: Your argument is on basis of illusions.

No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:13:38 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:16:03 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:19:16 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 12:20:19 AM
You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions.

#72 is real observation, no illusion.

The same observer did another a few days ago;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoQLlyBrInk

177 metres with the camera, the Cocklaw mast tops out at 380m

The Forth Bridge, between the two, with the top of its structure above the top of the mast. The top of the bridge is 110m above high water, 137m above its foundations

Both these figures are smaller than both 177 and 380m.

If the Earth were flat, how could the top of the bridge appear higher than the direct sightline between 177 and 380m?

https://imgur.com/1Nm2VTd

There's another YouTuber with a series of observations from the region of the Cocklaw mast, looking toward the hills from which this YouTuber was photographing. They show the same, observations which would be impossible on a geometric FET prediction.





No refraction, no illusion, no sinking ships, no virtual/visual/apparent horizons, or any of the other hogwash the YT FE brigade come up with ....
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:22:41 AM
That video has no sound and no analysis.

Those observations need standard refraction illusions to even approach meeting an RE and there are multiple observations showing a Flat Earth. Multiple contradictory observations of this sinking ship proof = a farce proof for the globe.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 12:24:20 AM
That video has no sound and no analysis. Those observations need standard refraction to even approach meeting an RE and there are multiple observations showing a Flat Earth. Multiple contradictory observations of this sinking ship proof.

Are you referring to the video I posted at #80?

The one where I explicitly said there was no refraction, etc to be considered?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:24:28 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:25:28 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?

You told us that illusions were occurring. We can take your word on that.

Illusions -- Needed to fix your model. Illusions that change regularly, and do not match the globe.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:29:49 AM
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?

You told us that illusions were occurring. We can take your word on that.

Illusions -- Needed to fix your model. Illusions that change every day an observation is made, and do not match the globe.

You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

If the earth is flat, which I presume you think it was when the photo was taken, 850' of the hill is missing. According to your flat earth model, what is the explanation for that?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:32:11 AM
You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

You answered it:

Quote from: stack
illusions

You self-admit that an illusion is occurring and think that this illusion proves your ball or something. RE is based on illusions. Illusions are there.

The sinking ship effect is an illusion in FET. Sometimes its flat, and sometimes there is sinking.

The sunken scenes constantly change in timelapses, falsifying your curvature due to earth sinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygBcqehnNg
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:46:21 AM
You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

You answered it:

Quote from: stack
illusions

You self-admit that an illusion is occurring and think that this illusion proves your ball or something. RE is based on illusions. Illusions are there.

The sinking ship effect is an illusion in FET. Sometimes its flat, and sometimes there is sinking.

The sunken scenes constantly change in timelapses, falsifying your curvature due to earth sinking:

So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 12:47:41 AM
Looks to me like a bunch of sinking illusions are occurring here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

Where are the timelapses showing things rise from behind the horizon?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 12:59:28 AM
Looks to me like a bunch of sinking illusions are occurring here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

Where are the timelapses showing things rise from behind the horizon?

Here's a nice crisp one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYZMJL5aBc
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 01:10:51 AM
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 01:17:19 AM
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I have, it's not a very good read. Mostly anecdotal with little to no evidence for any of the claims or assertions. And woefully steeped in a scriptural bias.

Simple question, select A or B: You're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

A) YES
B) NO
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 01:19:18 AM
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 01:37:47 AM
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2019, 01:39:08 AM
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

You can read about the sinking effect in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe and other FE literature. It's part of FET. It would be better if you consider reading more and posting less.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 29, 2019, 02:00:48 AM
Well as we read Tom's tap dancing to avoid a simple question, let's all remember that the wiki entry for the Bishop "Experiment" meets neither the scientific nor Tom's definition of what an experiment ought to be.  Perhaps one day, Tom will attempt to recreate it instead of relying on YouTubers, but that would be a level of Zeteticism that no one expects to witness.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 29, 2019, 04:04:52 AM
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

You can read about the sinking effect in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe and other FE literature. It's part of FET. It would be better if you read more and post less.

Definitely odd that you won't answer such a straight forward question and punt to the wiki & ENAG. It's almost like you refuse to personally support your own model.

In ENAG, in the chapter titled, "Perspective on the Sea", SBR goes to great lengths to describe how when viewing objects over water, like a sinking ship, his 'Law of Perspective' reasoning for why ships go over the horizon doesn't always apply.  His 'Law of Perspective' can be found in the preceding chapter, 'Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head', aka, the Sinking Ship Effect.

In "Perspective on the Sea" he writes, "If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight."

He goes on to write, "Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or datum line, is changed...because the water is always more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line."

And he concludes with, "Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity."

Now are we to conclude, from your refusal to give an answer, that the flat earth illusion that is causing 850' of that hill to disappear is due to the mobility of the water? The "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken are such that they reach 850' high into the sky from sea level obscuring our view? Or is there some other phenomena at work? Some other illusion, as it were?

You are so quick to call out RET for the use of refraction as an illusion. And here we can only guess upon your non-answer and rely on ENAG/Wiki's two illusions:
1) The atmospheric effects were so great that day that they erased 850' of a hill from view or,
2) An 850' tall "swell" rolled through obscuring our view

Which illusion was it that caused the 850' to disappear?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 07:49:19 AM
That video has no sound and no analysis.

So what?  You don't need sound to look at an observation.  I provided an analysis for you.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 07:51:46 AM
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I've cited two videos which are not over the open ocean. I suggest you look at more than ocean videos.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: tellytubby on May 29, 2019, 08:28:21 AM
Quote
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I said before in possibly another thread that Rowbotham was no doubt a very keen and dedicated observer. I'm sure that his descriptions of what he observed where on the whole generally quite accurate. However his interpretations and accounts for what he saw were less so and more influenced by what he wanted to believe rather than a quest for scientific accuracy.

Of course still to this day some people believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see (UFOs/Ghosts being other examples of this effect). So given that Rowbotham was a FE believer he would of course interpret what he saw as 'proving' his flat Earth belief. Even if it could be shown that he would see the same if the surface is actually curved.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 08:44:36 AM
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean.

Thought experiment;

If observer is onshore, at height H1, and is looking out over open seas, with an island in view, with a lighthouse of height, H2, then would you agree, if H2 is less than H1, that if the seas around the island are truly flat, that the sightline from the observation point through the top of the lighthouse MUST meet the sea at some point beyond the lighthouse?

(https://i.imgur.com/AtvDpvU.jpg)

Agreed?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 09:06:03 AM
The reversal of the observations of Cocklaw Radio Mast that I posted earlier are Miles Davis' numerous observations from Traprain Law and Byres Hill toward the Forth Bridges and beyond, to the same hills that flatsa took his video from.

Although they have slightly different start and end points, and the data is based on different bridges (which are all clustered within a few hundred metres of each other) they're all photographed over the same terrain, from opposite ends.

(https://i.imgur.com/SVHgFAq.jpg)

(Camera height 210m, bridge towers 210m, the green lines are indicative of Eye Level. The terrain beyond is therefore below eye level.)

Taken from;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYuzPuwlq_w


(https://i.imgur.com/rqGYenY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/k6OGoxQ.jpg)

I claim no refraction, illusion, sinking ship, or other optical effects.

Multiple observations by both photographers, from both directions, on widely-differing days, all show the same situation. 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2019, 03:47:51 PM
I claim no refraction
Conveniently. After all, if you did, your bombastic claim about the observation matching RET would be immediately discredited. It's poor form, though.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 29, 2019, 04:27:26 PM
I claim no refraction
Conveniently. After all, if you did, your bombastic claim about the observation matching RET would be immediately discredited. It's poor form, though.

Why?

I invite you or anyone else to show how refraction would invalidate a number of different observations, on different days, in different conditions.

Once again, there have been a number of observations in one direction (YouTuber Miles Davis) and another set taken from the opposite direction showing the same result (YouTuber flatsa).

For daytime observations, one will have sun on his left, the other on his right. For late afternoon/evening observations, one will have sun in his face, the other sun behind.

How would refraction affect both of them to the extent of invalidating them?

These observations are impossible on a Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2019, 05:27:34 PM
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

...are you claiming that refraction doesn't exist? ???
Why would any of the hill be hidden on a FE?

Quote
The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed.

Yes, our atmosphere is complicated and the amount of refraction can vary during the day.

Quote
The amount of the Twisting Tower sinking scenes were not consistent with a globe, nor anything else we have looked at.

Well, they're not consistent with a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere but that's not the world we live on.
Any calculation about what we "should" see necessarily has to make some simplifications or assumptions. No online tool can know exactly how much refraction there will be in a certain scenario. You excitedly use disparities between a perfect, simplified model and reality as a "smoking gun" of something. But you ignore the fact that these results are not at all consistent with a flat earth. On a FE you'd expect the entire Twisting Tower to be visible no matter the distance - so long as visibility allows. So long as the viewer height is above the wave height, the amount of the building blocked cannot be any more than the height of the highest wave.

(https://image.ibb.co/iL8rC7/waves.jpg)

But that's not what the video shows. The video shows that the amount of the building occluded increases with distance. This is easily explained if we live on a globe, the further away you are the more over the curve the building will be. But on a flat earth you should be able to see the whole building. It should be restored with optical zoom but it isn't.

You say "Aha! But it doesn't exactly match the simplified model". Well, maybe not. As discussed, our atmosphere is complex. But those observations are certainly a much better fit for the globe model than a FE where the entire building should be visible.
I note you did the same with Bobby's image. "Aha!", you say, "You shouldn't be able to see the top of that hill on a globe, you can only make that work if you use some illusion".
I'm not clear why you believe refraction to be an illusion and ignore the fact that on a FE the entire hill should be visible.
I note you repeatedly refused to answer the straight question about where the 850 feet of the hill went. Why can't we see it on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: iamcpc on May 30, 2019, 03:59:39 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/rqGYenY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/k6OGoxQ.jpg)


Very good diagrams which would offer VERY strong evidence which supports the round earth model if we lived in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't.

These diagrams don't outline temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, atmospheric composition, air quality and any of the other chaotic atmospheric variables under which these predictions are made. The temperature could increase 5 degrees and any observations or measurements would have a significantly different outcome.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 30, 2019, 04:10:31 PM
These diagrams don't outline temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, atmospheric composition, air quality and any of the other chaotic atmospheric variables under which these predictions are made. The temperature could increase 5 degrees and any observations or measurements would have a significantly different outcome.

The observations have been repeated on different days in the direction indicated in my diagrams, with similar results.

A different observer has repeated them from the opposite direction, from broadly the location indicated partway up the hill, and got results which, although they centre on different targets near to the original observation point, also show the same result.

Which of your list could apply on different days, consistently, to different observers?

Are you genuinely suggesting that a temperature variation could cause a single sightline to be distorted by over 200m and have no other effect on the landscape, nor on the bridges observed in the middle? They're not distorted, excessively hazy, or obscured. 
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 30, 2019, 05:29:03 PM
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: iamcpc on May 30, 2019, 08:32:24 PM
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.

You're never going to make everyone happy. Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on May 31, 2019, 06:38:13 AM
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.

You're never going to make everyone happy. Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

If this were the criteria for all of these types of experiments, you would have to immediately throw out all that is in Earth Not a Globe and pretty much every other experiment/observation ever conducted in this realm. I can't conceive of a way to have, for example, the same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but have the humidity 50% higher. Can you?
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 31, 2019, 11:04:08 AM
Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

>- - - As was said, there's none of this in ENaG, but he's happy with that .... - - -<



After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

Perhaps someone could take the observations first, and prove positively that there's any effect from these at all  .... perhaps you could take a look and show me/us where you see this "chaos" ....? I don't see it.

The YouTuber I cited as observing from Traprain Law has been back three or four times. Another, totally separate YouTuber tried to disprove him by observing from the opposite end of the site, on further different days, around half a dozen times. Although they used different landmarks/targets with the general area, their results are in accord.

Multiple observations with the same result; negates the possibility that variances in the factors you cited would affect the results to the extent you seem to claim.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on May 31, 2019, 11:26:53 AM
A YouTuber has spent, apparently, three years or so doing his own variations on the TBE, and today has (reluctantly, apparently) accepted that the Earth cannot be flat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve1QkrMzHhw

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 06, 2019, 10:34:52 PM
A YouTuber has spent, apparently, three years or so doing his own variations on the TBE, and today has (reluctantly, apparently) accepted that the Earth cannot be flat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve1QkrMzHhw
Didn't last long.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tumeni on June 06, 2019, 11:13:20 PM
Didn't last long.

Descended into visible vs. tangible waffle, and deletion of non-aligned comments within a day or so...
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 06, 2019, 11:50:05 PM
Didn't last long.

Descended into visible vs. tangible waffle, and deletion of non-aligned comments within a day or so...
I was saddened by this. I watched the video where he read in the manual on the auto-level that it used "gravity" to level itself, and therefore he is rejecting it... You know... because there's no such thing as gravity.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: iamcpc on June 12, 2019, 03:00:36 PM


Perhaps someone could take the observations first, and prove positively that there's any effect from these at all  .... perhaps you could take a look and show me/us where you see this "chaos" ....? I don't see it.







here:
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og


these observations were made at the same day, same place, same altitude.

at 7:00 AM the opposite shore is clearly visible.
at 11:30 AM the opposite shore has mostly set  behind the horizon
at 11:36 AM the opposite shore has come back into view
at 12:32 PM the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

at 1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
at 1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.


same day, same cloud cover, roughly the same time, same place, same altitude, almost the exact same temperature yet dramatically different observations.


Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on June 12, 2019, 03:52:38 PM
One of the worse scientific experiment and observations is using ocean water patch visual level.  It changes a lot in minutes, just some small constant wind sheer from one or another direction can just push a bunch of water level from one side to another.  Not even talking about other factors, like tides and ocean currents that can cause the same effect.   FEs (and even REs) love to use such opportunities to "prove or disprove" the flatness of the planet.  It proves nothing, it is impossible to make sure of anything, even very rapidly light refraction changes on water surface, due temperature, spray, moisture, etc, it is a total uncontrollable environment for any scientific visual testing.  The fact that water is a gravity self leveling phase of the matter, doesn't mean it will be self leveled and perfectly distributed in a long patch.  If you ever traveled by boat or in an ocean cruise, and if you were curious enough to pay attention to the water, saw vast area of water depressions and lumps caused by wind or differential barometric column pressure.  Just look up, if you see a dark big cloud, the water below would be showing leveling anomalies. You can also be surprise how long does it take for the boat wakes to disappear and "flat level" back to normal.  The only place water is flat leveled is in a glass bowl over the kitchen counter, and even so there is the surface tension at the glass point of contact.  I have a lake at the back of my home, somedays I wonder the wind ripples over the water, but all tree leaves are static, so little air movement registered over water - I would bet the water level would be different from one to another side of the lake.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTn9xG7XJy98f6eb2HXlJsM8beEkYGWKw7BcaIP6fnq9RJQcfK6Zg)
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 12, 2019, 09:35:13 PM
here:
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og


these observations were made at the same day, same place, same altitude.

at 7:00 AM the opposite shore is clearly visible.
at 11:30 AM the opposite shore has mostly set  behind the horizon
at 11:36 AM the opposite shore has come back into view
at 12:32 PM the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

at 1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
at 1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.


same day, same cloud cover, roughly the same time, same place, same altitude, almost the exact same temperature yet dramatically different observations.

That's a really cool video, and it tells us A LOT!
You can see not only the water level appearing to rise and fall, but you can see other features rising and falling. I would say that this video demonstrates pretty conclusively that atmospheric refraction is a thing, and that it varies throughout the day.
One might be tempted to see this video, throw up their hands, and declare, "It's impossible to tell anything with this kind of refraction going on!" But let me just suggest, the refraction seen here can be studied. You can tell how much the refraction changed during that day. By extension, you could do a longer observation to get the full variation of refraction. You can describe how the refraction varies with height. You can tell which direction the refraction changed when.
You can correlate your findings with the various prediction models and judge how well each model did.

I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on June 12, 2019, 09:55:54 PM
One point to notice.
The water is not contaminated with biological, it is blueish, colder, not warm and not constant evaporating, variable moisture.  This may cause evaporation by solar radiation more dependent on clouds then thermal stored, intermittent.  Skunk Bay, Kitsap County, Hansville, WA, must be low temp.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2019, 10:02:05 PM
Thanks for pointing out the timestamps, iampc. I've added your notes to the Sinking Ship Refraction Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction).

Some of the sinking ship examples have clear refraction effects going on. Much of the "sinking ship" media tends to have distortion at the horizon, which  is evidence that curving light rays are present. See Soundly's altitude change example:

(https://i.imgur.com/ahN39J5.gif)

The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

The Lake Pontchartrain power lines also appear to be disappearing into refraction at the horizon:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/27877/)

An identical effect also appears to be happening in this road scene at the 58:21 mark:

https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: iamcpc on June 12, 2019, 10:09:30 PM
I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.


The problem is that no one does dig deeper. They say look this picture, based on what I see, proves the earth is round.

Based on that logic, based on the time lapse shown the earth alternates from between being flat and being round throughout the day.


Thanks for pointing out the timestamps, iampc. I've added them to the Sinking Ship Refraction Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction).

I really wanted to find some point where there was just a few minutes apart and no temperature difference whatsoever so no one could claim that temperature was the sole cause of the data being different.


I would gladly consider marking some of these predictions/observations as RE evidence if they even attempted to outline what is happening optically. Optical variables, atmospheric variables, and things like refraction are many times outright ignored.

People continuously say this refracted observation matched the round earth predictions in a vacuum. THE EARTH IS ROUND. When literally a few seconds later the observation has been demonstrated to change.


Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: ICanScienceThat on June 13, 2019, 12:43:02 AM
I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.


The problem is that no one does dig deeper. They say look this picture, based on what I see, proves the earth is round.

Based on that logic, based on the time lapse shown the earth alternates from between being flat and being round throughout the day.
Does it though? At what time stamps does this image indicate that the Earth is flat? At what times does it show round? Have you checked any numbers to back any of this up?
It is not my intention to tell you the answers. I'd suggest you go and work them out for yourself.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on June 13, 2019, 03:22:22 AM
I would gladly consider marking some of these predictions/observations as RE evidence if they even attempted to outline what is happening optically. Optical variables, atmospheric variables, and things like refraction are many times outright ignored.

I think you need to flip the script somewhat. FE needs to outline what is happening optically. For instance, if RE claims 'refraction' it's deemed an "illusion" of dubious nature. As in, for example, the case that Tom brought up that we never got an FE explanation as to what was happening optically:

Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

We never found out what happened to the 850' of hill that went missing on flat earth. So out of one side of the mouth comes this, "RE is always claiming some voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect..." and out of the other is "RE is not taking into account atmospheric miraging refraction effects..." Which is it?

In the example above, RE claims a 50' voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect. FE has to claim an 850' voodoo atmospheric miraging refraction effect. Pick your poison.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Macarios on June 13, 2019, 07:25:13 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ahN39J5.gif)

The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldn see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: spherical on June 13, 2019, 05:12:50 PM
The bridge progressively disappears under the horizon, from close to far distance, considering 8"/mile... as the camera goes down and down.
Reappears progressively from distance to close distance, by the same rule, as the camera goes up and up.
Best example of RE.
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: iamcpc on June 13, 2019, 11:29:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ahN39J5.gif)

The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: stack on June 14, 2019, 01:31:51 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ahN39J5.gif)

The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

Refraction is tricky to say the least. As variable as these atmospheric effects are, here are some Skunk Bay time lapses where no atmospheric effects/miraging seem to be present:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZCQus4MJc

And here’s a Skunk Bay Sunrise time lapse that shows no atmospheric effects/miraging:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtPCHJO-trE

And then you have instances of little to no refractive miraging occurring, just an object rising or falling steadily with distance over a horizon as expected, we see ye olde sinking ship effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYZMJL5aBc
Title: Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
Post by: Macarios on June 14, 2019, 04:44:01 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/ahN39J5.gif)

The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

As if we couldnt see drastic change of observing altitude here. LOL

We also see a change of atmospheric pressure. The higher the altitude the lower the atmospheric pressure. How does the atmospheric pressure affect refraction?

Is the change in observations merely a change in refraction caused by different atmospheric conditions?

Someone could be of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% altitude.

Someone like tom is of the mindset that the change in viewing distance is 100% optical.

I am of the mindset that it could be both. Without more information about the optical conditions at different altitudes and their affect on observations made i'm unable to know for sure.

If it was for pressure only, the light would bend downward toward the denser layers and the distant objects would appear HIGHER than they are, not lower.
If it was also for inferior mirage, the mirage would not only have to counteract the pressure caused downward refraction, but to refract the light up for very high amount.
For such amount the temperature differences should be so high that hardly human would survive them.
In some tropical desert, where the temperatures are extreme, inferior mirage still gives weaker effect.