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 ... 137  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the flat earth position?
« on: Today at 05:21:14 AM »
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.

In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.

The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).

2
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

Quote
but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

3
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.

Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.

4
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:35:41 AM »
The assumption that the Earth is round has existed for too long to be wrong with every single measurement since that proved to be successful.

Unfortunately this is incorrect.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:22:10 AM »
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high ;D

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:14:41 AM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.

The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.

I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)

Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?

Quote
You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?

Quote
IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.


No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.

"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.

Quote
So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.

That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.

If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 09:01:26 PM »
Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »
yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

Quote
homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 08:30:24 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth.   So you are "assuming the consequent".

HOWEVER:  The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead.  This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye.  Hence you cannot see the elephant.

But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.

This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling.   Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here.   The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.

Here is a helpful diagram.



Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree.  Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.

The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.

11
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:



Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

13
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 16, 2017, 05:15:20 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
It shows a greater appeal to round earthers for sure, I would say it's an advantage if it doesn't 'depend' on there being a necessary faking of all space travel missions, considering that it doesn't apply an extra burden of assumptions.
Otherwise, I don't see an issue with this greater appeal to mainstream science than ordinary FE, it's just that these main premises that follow are quite unique to this model.

With all of these appeals to authority you seem more interested in following the herd than finding out the truth.

Interesting that you find a discrepancy between factual veracity and public consensus in this, of all other, case of cases.

Public consensus also states that there is a magical fairy in the sky that grants wishes.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 04:56:59 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

16
Are you talking about this incredibly phony Chinese space station?



17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 02:15:49 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 02:07:49 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 01:27:23 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 16, 2017, 01:21:16 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
It shows a greater appeal to round earthers for sure, I would say it's an advantage if it doesn't 'depend' on there being a necessary faking of all space travel missions, considering that it doesn't apply an extra burden of assumptions.
Otherwise, I don't see an issue with this greater appeal to mainstream science than ordinary FE, it's just that these main premises that follow are quite unique to this model.

With all of these appeals to authority you seem more interested in following the herd than finding out the truth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 137  Next >