Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 310  Next >
1
The Moon doesn't only rise from the East at the equator:

http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html

  “ THE U.MASS. SUNWHEEL is an 8 year old stone circle -- a solar and lunar calendar and observatory located on the campus of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The stone circle contains 14 stones 8'-10' tall, marking the cardinal directions, the directions along the horizon to the rising and setting Sun at the solstices and equinoxes, and the directions to the rising and setting Moon at major lunar standstill. ”



From Cornell University for the Northern Hemisphere:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/128-how-does-the-position-of-moonrise-and-moonset-change-intermediate



The direction of Moonrise changes quite drastically over 14 days, moving over quite extreme ranges South to North.

Back to the string experiment:

https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/lunarcycles/positionsdemonstrator.html

Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram

"Provides a method of learning the correlation between the phase of the moon, the time of day, and the position of the moon in the sky."



So the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing upwards while the Sun is at the horizon. The little man takes out his string and aligns it with the yellow path on the celestial sphere to connect the Moon and Sun. What does that prove to us?


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 09:59:22 PM »
Your explanation of "it's an illusion" is not a very satisfying mechanism.

If the Moon is in the East with the illuminated portion pointing straight upwards, and the Sun is half way into the horizon in the West, what would a string tell us about the mechanism?

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 07:39:13 PM »
The bending in EA takes place over thousands of miles. It is under two degrees per 100 miles as far as I can see. Terrestrial light may alternatively be going through a different gradient than celestial light.

The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 06:15:24 PM »
Quote
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.

20 odd degrees is a heck of a bend Tom... what do you suggest might be causing light to bend 'upwards' by such an extent. An easier, more simple and likely explanation is surely that the Earths surface is curved?

If it was due to a curved earth then it should be possible to use multiple observations of the sun to triangulate it to a single point in space: https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator#Sun_Triangulation_Problem

There are also some pretty odd anomalies which seem to suggest that light is bending upwards. See the end of
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 03:59:23 PM »
Metabunk did an experiment with people in lots of different locations which demonstrated that the results make no sense on a flat earth:

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/

I have said multiple times on here that it would be easy to calculate the distance to the sun by making observations in a few different locations and triangulating - that is effectively what is done above and shows that the results are not consistent with a flat earth. It’s telling that there has been no (as far as I know) FE attempt to do this.

Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.

6
Flat Earth Media / Re: The Principle Movie
« on: October 12, 2019, 12:56:39 AM »
Ah, I believe that I saw that one in Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time.

“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.

There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”
                  —Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 44.

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Telescope images of moon
« on: October 11, 2019, 05:18:10 PM »
If I had said "the pictures are from NASA's fake space crafts" I am sure the RE would have found something to divert, whine, and REEEEE about.

Instead, we got simple agreement that the pictures were not from earth telescopes.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 11, 2019, 12:32:44 AM »

9
Flat Earth Media / The Principle Movie
« on: October 10, 2019, 04:57:07 PM »
This post contains spoilers.

I came across this meme about The Principle, and the quotes caught my eye:



If that website full of falsities is trying to discredit it then there must be some truth to it.

So, I decided to finally watch Robert Sungenis' geocentrism movie The Principle. The movie consists of a mix of science history and interviews with famous physicists who were apparently interviewed believing that they were going to be part of a regular cosmology documentary.

The movie starts with them describing the Copernican Principle which states we are unimportant and with Lawrence Krauss screaming "we are nothing!!" We then join the physcists on a journey of discovery to make sense of cosmological data suggesting that we are central.

The common line about this movie is that scientists were "misquoted," but there is no mistaking that they are saying things like "it really looks like we are at the center of the universe... but don't worry, it only looks that way!", that there are large scale phenomena in the universe aligned with the earth and ecliptic, that it is really weird that experiments show that we are not moving, and that if the earth was the center of the universe it would solve many problems in cosmology.

The movie ends on a feel-good note. Maybe a little theological misquoting at the end... but "misquoted" or not, the statements are fairly interesting. At the end of it all, and after all of their challenges and struggles to make sense of nature, our cosmologist interviewees finally find God and admit that the earth is a very special place at the center of the universe. A happy ending.

A free streaming version is available on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/ThePrinciple

10
Did he ever post his video? I searched and couldn't find it.

11
Flat Earth Projects / Re: The BIGGEST collection of FE books in the world
« on: September 30, 2019, 05:42:28 AM »
Looks like a pretty good list and collection.

If you don't want to start a flat earth books website another way to share them would be to create an account on archive.org and upload them to your own collection. It's pretty straight forward.

I have found that anti-relativity works fall under FET, since SR was created to explain the horizontally motionless earth experiments of Michelson-Morley, Airy's Failure and others. I have some anti-relativity sources here -- https://wiki.tfes.org/Criticisms_of_Relativity_Theory

You should add Galileo Was Wrong, which is available somewhere in the stickied Additions to the Library thread, and which I found informative on some of the geocentric arguments.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 25, 2019, 06:50:03 PM »
If it's so loosey-goosy then how do we know it's gravity? Kepler thought that the solar system was held together with some sort of magnetism, as an example.

I find the fact that current dogma points to the Neptune saga as a proof of gravity as revealing indication that the bodies in the solar system cannot actually be predicted with gravity. Usually we are told that there is an n-body simulation of the solar system which accurately predicts celestial events. Surely a proof of gravity would simply be that the position of Mars or any body can be predicted on a regular basis, and that accurate predictions are made every day, rather than championing a questionable event from 1846 as their celestial proof of gravity.

The choice of proofs which are being used sort of suggests that what the professors and scientists are saying in this article is true: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 24, 2019, 05:34:58 PM »
The Discovery of Neptune Wikipedia page that was posted suggests that people involved were not being entirely honest:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

Quote
In an interview in 2003, historian Nicholas Kollerstrom concluded that Adams's claim to Neptune was far weaker than had been suggested, as he had vacillated repeatedly over the planet's exact location, with estimates ranging across 20 degrees of arc. Airy's role as the hidebound superior willfully ignoring the upstart young intellect was, according to Kollerstrom, largely constructed after the planet was found, in order to boost Adams's, and therefore Britain's, credit for the discovery.

Read the following by astronomer Sears C. Walker:

Quote
If we admit for the moment that my views are correct, then LeVerrier's announcement of March 29th is in perfect accordance with that of Professor Peirce of the 16th of the same month, viz. that the present visible planet Neptune is not the mathematical planet to which theory had directed the telescope. None of its elements conform to the theoretical limits. Nor does it perform the functions on which alone its existence was predicted, viz. those of removing that opprobrium of astronomers, the unexplained perturbations of Uranus.

We have it on the authority of Professor Peirce that if we ascribe to Neptune a mass of three-fourths of the amount predicted by LeVerrier, it will have the best possible effect in reducing the residual perturbations of Uranus below their former value; but will nevertheless leave them on the average two-thirds as great as before.

It is indeed remarkable that the two distinguished European astronomers, LeVerrier and Adams, should, by a wrong hypothesis, have been led to a right conclusion respecting the actual position of a planet in the heavens. It required for their success a compensation of errors. The unforeseen error of sixty years in their assumed period was compensated by the other unforeseen error of their assumed office of the planet. If both of them had committed only one theoretical error, (not then, but now believed to be such,) they would, according to Prof. Peirce's computations, have agreed in pointing the telescope in the wrong direction, and Neptune might have been unknown for years to come.

http://www.helas.gr/conf/2011/posters/S_5/dallas.pdf

Quote
Airy seems to be the only scientist involved in the discovery that has thoughts of a possible modification of Newtonian gravity to explain the irregular movement of Uranus. But nowhere in his memoire is there a statement that the discovery of Neptune is a test, let alone a critical one, of the law of gravitation. It was apparent shortly after the discovery that luck played its part in the easy discovery of Neptune. The whole process is extremely error prone, in both the calculations and the observations, so if the planet were not discovered in the circumstances of 1846, this would not be a refutation of Newtonian gravity, but simply a refutation of the auxiliary prepositions.

Ah, so if it wasn't discovered at all it means nothing about gravity, but if something is sorta-kinda discovered somewhere, it's an irrefutable proof of gravity. The science of astronomy at its finest.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:02:46 AM »
https://earthsky.org/human-world/today-in-science-discovery-of-neptune

I feel this is especially appropriate, given that today is the anniversary of it's discovery. Mathematics and Newton's theory used to produce a testable hypothesis about the location of a then-unknown planet beyond Uranus. A prediction that turned out to be accurate.

Your link says that it was discovered by luck.

Quote
Ironically, as it turns out, both Le Verrier and Adams had been very lucky. Their predictions indicated Neptune’s distance correctly around 1840-1850. Had they made their calculations at another time, both predicted positions would have been off. Their calculations would have predicted the planet’s position only 165 years later or earlier, since Neptune takes 165 years to orbit once around the sun.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:19:39 PM »
All of your links say that the observation and hypothesis should be tested.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

Quote
The scientific method

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method

Quote
scientific method
WORD ORIGIN
noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method

Quote
What is the Scientific Method?
- Formulate hypothesis
- Collect data
- Test hypotheses
- Conclude

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about a specific FE model.
« on: September 20, 2019, 06:00:35 PM »
If there is no dome/firmament and the earth had an edge outside of the ice wall and the earth is accelerating upwards is there any documentation, ideas, or theories on what is preventing the air from just flowing off the edge?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis

On this topic, there may need to be some improvement to this article.

The reason the Antarctic features high pressure appears to be related to the low temperature = low pressure physics relationship. Due to the low pressure the weight of the atmosphere is not able to sustain itself at previous levels, and squishes towards the earth, causing the 'high pressure'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_High

Quote
The polar highs are areas of high atmospheric pressure around the north and south poles; the north polar high being the stronger one because land gains and loses heat more effectively than sea. The cold temperatures in the polar regions cause air to descend to create the high pressure (a process called subsidence), just as the warm temperatures around the equator cause air to rise to create the low pressure intertropical convergence zone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence_(atmosphere)

Quote
Subsidence, in the Earth's atmosphere, is most commonly caused by a low temperature. As the air cools, it becomes denser and moves towards the ground, as warm air becomes less dense and moves upwards (Atmospheric convection). Subsiding air is cold and dry and rises atmospheric pressure forming a high-pressure or anticyclonic area

Subsidence generally causes high barometric pressure as more air moves into the same space: the polar highs are areas of almost constant subsidence, as are the horse latitudes, and the areas of subsidence are the sources of much of the world's prevailing winds.

This also may explain why the 'high pressures' of the polar areas do not equalize in pressure with the lower pressure of the tropical areas. It could be a physcial and geometric matter related to the weight of the atmolayer.

18
Flat Earth Media / Another Picture in Favor of Flat Earth
« on: September 17, 2019, 11:45:40 PM »
Taboo Conspiracy and Wide Awake submit another piece of evidence to the pile. Runtime: 2:34



Clearly, each light is affected by different refraction gradients of differing magnitudes, which unwrap the lights from around the ball to put the light sources onto a plane.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 16, 2019, 06:40:11 PM »
NLT is a translation, but Strong's Concordance is not a translation. It's an index which shows you how the word is used elsewhere.

From the Strong's Concordance Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance

Quote
The purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bible Proof
« on: September 16, 2019, 07:16:42 AM »
All Around, gets it all WRONG. He or she never mentions what WIND is? Why? Well, because wind is Gods Spirit. So if you were God wouldn't you want to surround the circle of earth with your SPIRIT, evenly spaced so one can't escape it. What you end up with is a square over laid over the circle of the earth or 4 corners. John 3:8 (kjv) describes it. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Understanding the Word of God is so easy once one accepts the Gift of Salvation. Or you can listen to scientist which I have ZERO faith in.

This is a very interesting interpretation. The problem that I have with this is that it says the corners of the earth not the corners of the spirit of God. When we had these sort of debates in a bible group we would always look at the ancient Hebrew. Many times this give clarification to exactly what the words were most likely to have meant.


https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html



There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.

Paioh means “a geometric corner”

Ziovyoh means “right angle” or “corner”

Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.

Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered Earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.

Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.

You may be correct. Strong's Concordance index says that it primarily means 'extremity':

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/11-12.htm

Not all of the versions of the Bible translate it as corners. New Living Translation translates Isaiah 11:12 as:

"He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 310  Next >