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 ... 132  Next >
1
If your sun isn't on the horizon in that image, then it must not be an accurate representation of reality. Theoretical maths and side view diagrams don't outweigh reality.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 08:22:41 PM »
Tom, does perspective rearrange the actual positions of real object?

It can put 3 inch tall railroad tracks at your 5'8" eye level. What do you think?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 08:17:48 PM »


Your diagram does not properly depict perspective.


4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: September 19, 2017, 07:56:36 PM »
I am commenting on your argument in that thread.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: September 19, 2017, 07:54:27 PM »
Let's make it even simpler, so even Tom's limited understanding of geometry can withstand:



The top part of the diagram shows our trusty pinhole camera positioned towards the horizon at "sunset" - and a few thousand miles away we have a place where it's noon right now - so the sun is vertically overhead - and some fairly large distance above the ground.   The camera takes an inverted photo of the sunset.

The bottom part of the diagram simplifies things and adds labels...we can talk about these two triangles being "similar" because angle 'a' equals angle 'b' - we have right angles in both triangles and the third angle is therefore (90-a) and (90-b) - so the two triangles are similar by the "AAA" rule.   We can calculate the angle 'a' (it comes out to around 30 degrees with FET data) - so we know 'b' - and using that and the size of the camera, we can calculate Himage that way.   There are any number of ways to do this.

But we don't need to do any of that to prove that the world isn't flat...we can just use our eyes.

So...if the orange light ray and the green light ray are straight lines.   How can the image of the sun be on top of the image of the horizon?

Forget math, geometry, similar triangles, perspective...ignore all possible other confusions.

HOW THE HECK DOES THE FE WORLD GET SUNSETS?


(Oh!  Wait!  I know..."Check the Wiki" - right?)

The only possibility is that the light from the sun enters the pinhole parallel to the light from the horizon.  The light simply cannot be travelling in a straight line.

So EITHER the world is flat or light bends around curves for reasons that are evidently a complete mystery to FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Now, Tom is on record as saying that he believes that light travels in straight lines - I quoted him directly at the top of this thread.

I think he now has to admit that he's made a mistake there...and we're back to the super-hokey "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.  (Which, I'm sure he knows we can make mincemeat of).

The interesting news here is that he can't flim-flam his way out of it - this is FAR too simple an argument.  So (I believe) we finally force him to shift his position on something.  It's a small step.  There will be more things - but this would be a start.

I shooting fish in a barrel fun?  Not really - but it's less fun for the fish.

   :-)

If the camera is seeing the sunset why is the sun high in the sky? By definition the sun is at the horizon at sunset. An observer with a camera seeing the sunset will see the sun at the horizon, not high in the sky.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: September 19, 2017, 06:53:43 PM »


If I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.

Your pinhole camera argument is not very clear. This is why I haven't replied to it. If you move the camera upwards "the image gets closer to the horizon". What does this mean?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 06:34:17 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
Not a very strong video for either scenario there Tom. The majority of the clouds are never lit up from the perspective of the camera, either on the top, or the side. The bottoms aren't possible to see because of how dense the cloud cover is.

The orange sunlight is hitting the tops of the clouds. How can it also be hitting the bottom of the clouds unless the light were coming in from the side?

Tom, there is an underlying confusion that needs to be cleared up, I think.

[snip]

All the time, the candle is above your hand. If you want its light to hit your hand at any negative angle you need to bend the light. You have confirmed in other threads that light doesn't bend. Ergo, case closed. 

And if you think that that's bad, consider that the sun at the FE sunset, is actually at a 23°inclination, way above the 12° of the figure b in my diagram.

See why I wanted you to draw a diagram?

Please refer to the video on the previous page which addresses this. Diagrams are provided in the video.

Nice try, but no, Tom! First off, it sounds like you didn't read my previous post carefully - please find it in you to re-read it again until you understand what actually said.

Parallel lines always remain parallel (otherwise they wouldn't be called parallel lines, now would they?), they just SEEM to converge from the viewpoints I showed in my video.

The viewpoint WE WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSING is the one from the side (equivalent to what I was showing with the camera above the notepad with the lines) -- this is where the FE "understanding" of perspective fails miserably, and this is the error in the video you posted (from the side view, the lines should remain parallel). You have not addressed this issue, and flerfers are yet to produce a convincing drawing of their model of how the sun supposedly moves away. Do give this a try, we would all love to see your attempt at this.

Why do we need to declare that viewpoint as true? Why not some other viewpoint? You have not provided a coherent argument for why that viewpoint is truer than all other points around it.

If you were to lay your head down on the table and draw what looked like parallel lines, the view from above would show that the lines are not parallel. Your choice of which viewpoint position is true is entirely arbitrary.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Cassini–Huygens mission
« on: September 19, 2017, 04:59:56 PM »
NASA has done a lot of rocket engine testing, and does a lot of atmospheric research and stratellite/psudolite development which I am sure is real.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 19, 2017, 04:53:59 PM »

a     b     c     d     e     f     g     h     i     j     k     l     m     n
______________________________________________________

If you are under point e you might only be able to see stars b though h. If you are under point j you might only be able to see stars g through m. When under point j here is some overlap in the stars you can see compared to when under point e.

Under the theory of the Ancient Greeks you should be able to see all stars when under any point; but this infinite nature of perspective theory has never been demonstrated.
This answer is absurd. The shift of perspective of a few thousand miles could not begin to make any difference in how we see stars related to each other. I hope you are not suggesting that in FET the stars are just a short distance away.

A change in viewing perspective can make a difference in seeing stars, but not from one country to another. It is possible to see a small change over a six month period, using the diameter of the Earth's orbit as the base of a triangle. This measurement technique is called stellar parallax, or just parallax. I don't recall the distance, but I think it is a practical measurement out to about 30 light years.

Also, the things we see as stars are not just single points of light which can only be defined by their constellation relationship. There are different stars, of different magnitudes, of different colors. There are nebula, clusters of stars, galaxies, and the band of the milky way itself. These objects are uniquely identifiable and many can only, ever, be seen from one hemisphere or another.

Yes, the stars are a short distance away in FET. Learn more FET.

Please explain on your diagram above how people at extreme distant points on FE map (like southern Australia and southern Argentina) can see the same stars/constellations but people in between (North America) can not see what they see.

Tom subscribes to the bipolar model, and while there are many problems with it (imo) this isn't one of them as it allows two 'discs' for stars, one over the Northern hemiplane, and one over the Southern hemiplane. This can manage to account for most of the different star problems.


Does the bipolar model account for being able to look south from 3 continents and see the same stars?

Yes.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:09:34 PM »
+1 !!!

Tom, since you seem to understand the FE "theory" so well, why not just draw us a few diagrams to help us visualize how things "really" work?

I just provided you a diagram. Perhaps you can pull out Photoshop and better render it for inclusion into a wiki page. You know, contribute, rather than demanding everything from me.

Quote
Please don't try to tarnish the accomplishments of the greeks. First of, they never said anything like that (and if you think they did, please point us to a source).

The Ancient Greeks believed in a continuous universe where time was infinitely dividable, space was infinite and infinitely dividable,  and where perspective lines could approach each other for infinity and never touch. The Ancient Greek math says that perspective lines can never touch, which is the basis for all of the "sun can never set on a flat earth" youtube video counter arguments.

Quote
And by the way, this is another hole in the FE myth: if the sun does disappear from view with increasing distance (unlike what actually happens - Earth's rotation), then how come we can still see the distant stars near the horizon at night, despite the fact that they are further away and more dim?

They are not further away, and they tend to disappear when they set before hitting the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:00:34 PM »

a     b     c     d     e     f     g     h     i     j     k     l     m     n
______________________________________________________

If you are under point e you might only be able to see stars b though h. If you are under point j you might only be able to see stars g through m. When under point j here is some overlap in the stars you can see compared to when under point e.

Under the theory of the Ancient Greeks you should be able to see all stars when under any point; but this infinite nature of perspective theory has never been demonstrated.
This answer is absurd. The shift of perspective of a few thousand miles could not begin to make any difference in how we see stars related to each other. I hope you are not suggesting that in FET the stars are just a short distance away.

A change in viewing perspective can make a difference in seeing stars, but not from one country to another. It is possible to see a small change over a six month period, using the diameter of the Earth's orbit as the base of a triangle. This measurement technique is called stellar parallax, or just parallax. I don't recall the distance, but I think it is a practical measurement out to about 30 light years.

Also, the things we see as stars are not just single points of light which can only be defined by their constellation relationship. There are different stars, of different magnitudes, of different colors. There are nebula, clusters of stars, galaxies, and the band of the milky way itself. These objects are uniquely identifiable and many can only, ever, be seen from one hemisphere or another.

Yes, the stars are a short distance away in FET. Learn more FET.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:52:58 PM »
Nobody is denying that the sun sometimes illuminates the tops of the clouds.  Demonstrating that proves nothing!

The problem you have is that a other times (most obviously when the clouds are relatively high and during the last light of sunset) the clouds are often lit from below.

Proving that sometimes "A" happens is not a valid disproof that at other times "B" happens.

The sunset ended in the video with the tops of the clouds being illuminated, not the bottom of the clouds. Just watch the whole video. The tops of the clouds start off white and end in orange. From 00:45 to 00:50 there are fleeting flashes of orange at the very tops of the clouds towards the sun.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:39:02 PM »
I'm so glad you said that Tom. Prove it. Let's see these clouds with the tops lit up in Orange. Or darkness-orange-sunlight in bands across the clouds.

Here is a video which shows the top of clouds orange and the bottom of the clouds being dark. Watch from 00:24 to 00:40:



Quote
The plane of the sun cannot go below the plane of vision of your eyes, and when the clouds are below you like that, it can't end up below them either by the same token. The plane of the clouds and that of the sun are still parallel after all. Just because the limitation of your eye sees them meet, doesn't stop them from not being able to ever cross.

This is entirely possible. The clouds are above the horizon and the sun is at the horizon - just like how you can put your hand above the horizon and all distant telephone poles. This was already discussed over the last couple of pages.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 11:22:18 AM »

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:


 -- I think you're letting him off the hook to easily!

The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

Nope, it provides an erroneous depiction of perspective. When viewed from the side, a distance away, parallel lines remain parallel. Here's a video I just made to demonstrate this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l0e7yca4uk2y836/IMG_0081.MOV?dl=0 In my video, the view from above onto the entire page shows parallel lines, just like the surface of the supposedly flat earth and the sun that supposedly travels over it in the diagram 3D made. You see the lines begin to converge ONLY when I move the camera closer to one end of the lines. The video you posted is a typical example of flerfer confusion: the author is wrongfully using converging lines in a side view, which never occurs.

Thoughts?

This is a good video. If I were to repurpose it I would use it to explain that parallel lines are not always parallel and are highly dependent on the perspective of the observer. Your parallel lines do not remain parallel as you move the camera around in your video. When the camera gets close to one end the lines appear to be somewhat pointed towards each other. If those lines were to continue onwards they would eventually touch. You cannot have to lines angled at each other and continuing forever without touching.

Although the lines seem to be parallel from one view point; perspective causes them to point towards each other from another view point, and touch at a vanishing point with enough distance, much like a railroad perspective scene.

It is also possible to draw lines which are angled slightly away from each other in a non-parallel angle and make those lines parallel by moving your camera around the scene. The concept of whether the lines are parallel or not depends on your perspective. There is not one view point which presents fundamental truth -- they are all true.

Your error is that you drew the scene from one view point and arbitrarily declared that viewpoint to be true, for no real particular reason. If you had rested your face on your table, such as where you rested your camera at one of the ends of the lines, and drew lines on the paper, you could equally declare that viewpoint to be more true than all others. And then when you looked at it from above it would look differently. Which is true and why? Is truth based merely on what is more comfortable for your head?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 10:41:12 AM »

OK - so lets ELIMINATE perspective from the argument by doing this:

Suppose I'm some distant viewer - on a mountain that's a little lower than the height of the clouds off to the South of the Sun...with  Cloud over to the North-West.   I would see the sun and the under-lit cloud - all from the side view...yes?   Since it's noon for me now, the sun is high in the sky.

I call the little stick figure guy on my cellphone and he says "Hey - that cloud off to your North West is being lit from the underside!

Would not the scene that unfolds look very much like my diagram?   How would *I* see the light rays travelling?

The cloud is not being lit from the underside. It's being lit from the side. The sun is at the horizon for the cloud -- which is the cloud's side.

The sun's light is a band which rises upwards when it sets, much like in the intro scene of Disney's Gargoyles. Just above the line of darkness is an area of orange, where the light of the sun turns orange before completely setting. The picture happens to catch the cloud when it is half-way intersected with the orange, the lower portion being illuminated with orange, and your interpretation is that it is being illuminated from below rather than from the side. With more time more of the cloud would become orange, and eventually become dark from the bottom up as sunset passes.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:07:42 AM »
Then tell us what is incorrect about my diagram?   The sun is at the correct height - the horizontal distance is appropriate for noon (at the right) and sunset (towards the left).

Watch the video. It goes over the error of those scenes. You have presented a non-perspective side view scene which takes place outside of the universe. It does not properly account for perspective. Perspective is not seen that way. Perspective is seen from a view where everything intersects with the vanishing point. You are presenting a geometric scene which disregards empirical perspective. Under your scheme it is impossible for any receding body to ever intersect with a vanishing point -- a scenario which is not seen to occur.

Quote
Reality allows use to draw side-views does it not?   So do tell which elements of my diagram are incorrect.   All of the diagrams you usually post are side-views...aren't I allowed a side-view?

Side-view can be fine, but your scene does not properly account for perspective. The author of the video I embedded provides a more accurate side-view depiction of perspective.

The error with your illustration, specifically, is that the cloud would see the sun at the horizon near the vanishing point, due to the perspective that is not properly depicted, not high above it. The light is coming from the side, not above.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 19, 2017, 12:12:51 AM »
You have NOT demonstrated anything and you seem to be carefully ignoring my diagram that explains the problem here:



Recall: Light travels in straight lines (the blue line) and not in curved lines (the orange line) - so how exactly does the light from the sun light up the underside of the cloud?

Just tell us which path the light from the sun takes.  This shouldn't be a difficult question for you.

Please stop dodging this VERY simple question!

The light does not take that path because your side-view depiction of perspective is invalid and not in line with reality.



18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 05:32:56 PM »
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf

Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.

I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 04:41:40 PM »
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf

Please quote the appropriate data for us.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 18, 2017, 01:35:25 PM »
Yes, because your hand is not actually above the light pole in the distance. So yes, it's impossible to have your hand be above the light pole. You can have your hand be above where you perceive the light pole to be, but it is not actually above the light pole. The light from the lamp won't be hitting the bottom of your hand still. This is basic perspective Tom, a course you apparently missed. Something at height X, will never actually be above something at height Y assuming Y>X. By the same token, something below you, cannot appear on top of something above you. The hand in your image is now above you. The ground will never appear to be over one of the streetlights though. Perspective lines *meet* in the distance, they do not cross. They can't cross, because in reality the lines are actually parallel.

Your hand can appear above the light pole, therefore a cloud can appear above something higher above it.

/thread

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 132  Next >