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 ... 311  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 06:23:52 PM »
Quote
Your statements are very eloquent and would be applicable to our discussion here if and only if you can disprove the RE's main contention point: the SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves rotation.

Lets assume that the Michelson-Gale equation is correct or that the formula is analogous to a Sagnac equation:

How can this Sagnac Effect from the device prove rotation of earth's surface when we know that there are other variables which are not caused by the rotation of the earth that can cause the results to change drastically?

We saw from the inconsistency that the rotation of the earth in the Michelson-Gale is dominated by another effect which is not the rotation of the earth. This proves that the Sagnac Effect doesn't necessarily measure rotation of the earth. If it detects something then we can say that it might or might not be rotation of the surface. Whether it is the Sagnac formula or not, and despite nitpicking of formulas, the inconsistency and dominance of other effects in the experiment shows that the mechanism and associated formula is not reliable to prove rotation.

2
That link is wrong. The redshifts are not doppler shifts in the expanding universe explanation. They changed it to something else; the metric expansion of space:

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/25/1/25-1-trimble.pdf --

“ Everybody is occasionally tempted to think in terms of matter expanding from a point or small region into previously existing space. This is the wrong image. The space itself is expanding and carrying the matter with it. The redshifts we see are not Doppler shifts, caused by relative motion through space, but are rather the stretching out of wavelengths with the metric they propagate on. ”

“ If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. ”
                  —Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.

Stephen Hawking says there is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis:

  “ ...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

No scientific evidence. Believed only on grounds of modesty.

Edwin Hubble:

  “ Such a condition [the red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.

Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations.

The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position.

But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. ”
                  — E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 15, 2019, 05:03:05 PM »
The string doesn't prove that objects are actually pointing at each other.

When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:



Turns into this:



In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun, which is on the horizon at point A. They are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string just connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.

If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. Same for the Moon. This does not happen when you face the Moon. Thus the example is bunk. The string does not demonstrate that bodies around you are really pointing at each other.

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 07:57:23 AM »
In order to believe the RE interpretation for this, the earth is rotating and giving consistent results. There is another mysterious secondary mechanism modifying those results to a range between where the earth is stopped and where it is rotating at twice it's speed. Due to the range seen, this secondary mechanism is ALSO somehow related to the speed of the Earth's rotation. A secondary mechanism is stopping and then speeding up the earth by 2x and ranges inbetween. How likely is that?

Now that we have introduced mysterious mechanisms (roll eyes) related to the diurnal day anything is possible. Alternatively, we may interpret this as ONE mechanism which is creating that range of results, and which is related to the diurnal period of the sun, tides, or celestial bodies over the earth, whether it is seismic, heat, or 'aether' related. We know by the direct evidence of inconsistency that the results are modifiable by a mechanism which is not the rotation of the earth. If it is modifiable then it is also entirely createable.

This is most certainly not an irrefragable proof of Earth's rotation if mysterious mechanisms centered around the period of a diurnal day are required to keep your theory of a rotating earth alive. Once you require mysterious mechanisms in your experiment to explain the results to be coherent with your belief system, your experiment is now open to many interpretations. So many interpretations that the results become invalid.

Really, inconsistency ends the discussion. Confidence and certainty is required in emperical investigation, which inconsistency does not give. Anyone insisting on a particular interpretation of an inconsistent experiment is brandishing a sword of jelly.

But it is all they have, so we should not be surprised if they insist on fallacy and mental gymnastics as they do with so much else. It doesn't matter if they insist on 'possibilities'. The criticism shows that it is not the irrefutable evidence that is necessary to end this debate.

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, that is of less importance to me, but I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula at a glance, and it would not be surprising if some of the fundamentals were changed to come up with a statistical basis better to their liking, dishonest manipulators of science that they are.

5
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 06:07:17 AM »
RLGs suffer from no such deficiencies.

The RE will simply brush away your statements (valid as they are) and ask: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the Sagnac effect?

Will you answer yes?

Have you seen the raw results from the RLG to make that assertion?

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/911373.pdf --page 51 - 54 shows that the RLG results are inconsistent. A graph on p.54 shows that the results are adopted to a "best fit" algorithm. RLG is not really an experiment, and more like a consumer device. The analogous experiment is Michelson-Gale, which was miniaturized over time.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 05:44:53 AM »
That RE statement would be wrong.

A rotating earth should give consistent results, not stop, slow down, or speed up when tested at different times. The fact is, in order to explain those results now you have to bring in a mysterious second mechanism which is modifying the results. A mysterious secondary mechanism which is NOT the rotation of the earth is present in the experiment.

This invalidates all results. As you see, since the inconsitency shows that other effects are present, those other effects could also be related to the revolution of one rotation or oscillation per 24 hours, whether it be heat or seismic related, or related to some other phenomena. Since we don't know what it is, and we know for a certainty that the experiment is tainted, the experiment is hardly a proof of anything at all. This tainted experiment and all inferences must therefore be thrown out like the trash it is. Inconsistent experiments are always thrown out in emperical science. Not sometimes, always. Inconsistency is evidence that interference and variables have not been properly eliminated and you are not actually testing what you expect to be testing.

7
The "expanding universe" is part of man's denial that he is at the center of the universe. See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmological_Principle

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 12:37:23 AM »
Michelson-Gale is an inconsistent experiment which showed that the Earth started and stopped its rotation at different times the test was conducted, and was only argued to show the Earth's rotation based on a certain selected groupings and statistical basis.

From The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments by Dr. Paulo N. Correa:

  “ The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance. It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one. ”

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 14, 2019, 09:17:05 PM »
When you lie on your back you can see 180 degrees of space. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other. The tree-cabin example is apt.



The string experiment demonstrates almost nothing, and is erroneous. Stand up, face the tree or the moon, and you see that they are pointing upwards, and not at the opposite horizon.

The string experiment itself is the "illusion". Bodies which actually point at each other will point at each other from multiple positions and vantage points, not just when stretching a string across prehipreal vision.

This "they are actually pointing at each other" string proof is really quite bad. They clearly are not pointing at each other. One merely needs to stand up and face the upwardly pointing moon, knowing that the sun is on the opposite horizon, to see that directly.

At most the connection of bodies in such a manner supports the notion that the moon and sun behave as if they are on some kind of dome around the observer where straight lines become curved.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 14, 2019, 08:01:27 PM »
If you have a tree to the east of you and a cabin to the west of you, you are essentially claiming that you can lay down and pull out your string, connect the two, and prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin. What kind of argument is that?

I genuinely don’t know how a tree can “point” at a cabin. What are you talking about?

You are laying down on the ground and see a tree on one side of your vision, and a cabin on the other. You take out the string, connect them together, and have "proved" that the tree is pointing at the cabin.

That is exactly what the "string experiment" is. You are proclaiming "It's an illusion, see proof. The Moon is pointing at the sun and the string experiment broke the illusion!" In reality it did no such thing.

Take the string and hold it out an arm's length at the tree and the tree will project into space. The same occurs with the moon.



If you are laying down on the ground and see the moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the sun setting on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the moon is pointing at the sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin.

The upwardly pointing Moon in the east is directly anagolous to an upwardly pointing tree to your east. The Sun on the horizon is directly anagolous to a cabin to your west. The whole string thing is an erroneous thought experiment originated by a desperate astronomer

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 14, 2019, 04:13:23 PM »
If you have a tree to the east of you and a cabin to the west of you, you are essentially claiming that you can lay down and pull out your string, connect the two, and prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin. What kind of argument is that?

If you hold the string way out in front of you, you can also make the illuminated portion of the moon, or the direction of the tree in the above example, point off into space and not connect to the opposite body.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:44:03 AM »
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?


13
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?

14
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.

15
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

16
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.

17
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.

18
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.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 11, 2019, 12:32:44 AM »

20
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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 311  Next >