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 ... 282  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 16, 2019, 10:21:34 PM »
There are plenty of gyroscope experiments showing no rotation.

Those laser ring gyroscope are seisometers and are not truly detecting rotation of the surface beneath them. If you want to talk about gyroscopes start a thread about it.

When you guys start changing the topic it is a message that "I am losing this argument!"

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 10:17:56 PM »
This gets far too technical for me to follow

If you don't understand it then don't post about it please. Those are not three body problem solutions of the Sun-Earth-Moons system. The problem has not been solved and there is no one you can point to who solved the issue.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:38:47 PM »
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.

The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot  diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 08:46:21 PM »
Where is the research which explains why bodies fall without inertial resistance? Whenever bodies of different masses are accelerated through space they are subject to the laws of inertia. If gravity is pushing or pulling things down then bodies should be falling at different rates as they resist that pulling or pushing phenomenon. Compare pushing a marble to pushing a car that is in neutral. Much more force is required.

"It just does!"

"Some kind of illusion!"

All scientific experiments on gravity say that it behaves exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards. Falling experiments, light experiments, even time dilation experiments. We have some listed in our Evidence for Universal Acceleration article in the Wiki. Yet the best you guys can do is "some kind of illusion".

The power source of UA is beneath the earth and is unobserved, but imparted to us when the earth accelerates upwards. The place to detect it is under the earth. For gravity the power source which allows mass to pull mass should be all around us, yet undetectable by science. Where is the power source for "gravity"?

Gravity doesn’t just act between the earth and objects on it, it explains how the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun and how the other planets do too. It explains how the other planets have their own moons.
The FE model has no explanation for any of this.

There is no working mathematical model of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. See the Three Body Problem. Either show the mathematical model of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or stop fibbing that gravity can explain anything about it.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:51:19 AM »
We don't need to know how gravity happens, just that it happens

That's called an admission of defeat. All of science says that gravity behaves exactly as if the earth is accelerating upwards, with multitudes of experiments behind that, and you are calling it an illusion without evidence for that position.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:44:07 AM »
Who says that the thing pushing the earth needs to be invisible?

Your Gravitons are totally invisible and undetected. The upwardly moving earth is visible and detectable. The emperical evidence clearly sides with one mechanism.

Claiming that it's all an illusion and that invisible things are pulling bodies and that bodies fall without inertial resistance for "some reason" is not really a valid response and shows that you have no argument or evidence on that subject.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:31:56 AM »
The power source would be beneath the earth, unexperienced, and does not necessarily need new physics to cause the pheonomenon of push. Plenty of reactions can push. The power source for "gravity" should be all around us, yet this power source that allows mass to pull mass is undetected by all of science.

So somethig invisible and undetectable, "Gravitons" and "bendy space", is better proof than a mechanism that can be directly oberved?

Gravity is an illusion centered around the equivalence principle which says that it behaves, for some inexplicable reason, exactly like as if the earth is accelerating upwards, and with tons of experiments of all types to back up that up.

Can you show us any evidence at all for your Graviton particles or whatever your undetectable illusion is? No? Can you demonstrate why bodies fall without inertial resistance? No? Then the upwardly accelerating earth is better evidenced.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 16, 2019, 08:45:09 AM »
Simple and direct evidence is all around us.

Step off of a chair and walk off of it's edge. Tell me which of the following you observe: Bendy Space, Graviton Puller Particles, or the earth rising upwards to meet your feet.

Find a ball and release it into the air. Tell me which of the following you observe: Do you feel the earth pushing upwards against your feet as this occurs and no other mechanism, or do you observe some invisible phenomenon pulling you and the object to the earth?

Galileo has famously shown that two bodies of different masses will fall to the earth at the same rate. Yet, when we push a marble along the ground and a car in neutral down the road, they exhibit different levels of resistance. If something is pushing or pulling objects towards the earth, why don't those objects fall with different resistance as demanded by the laws of inertia? This is evidence that those bodies in free fall are inert and it is the earth that is accelerating upwards into the objects.

Those are just put in there to make the contractor look smart to the government. There is no way to verify any single one of those variables if the shot always misses it's target until the forward observer tells the artilleryman how much it missed by to adjust the barrel.

It is possible that they all mean something when combined, and accounts for some average uncertainty. But it is impossible to tell what is what.

What is the explanation for why the spinning atmosphere, (that is spinning around the axis of the Earth at the same rate as the surface) which supposedly explains why plane and helicopter trajectories do not have to compensate for Earth spin, doesn't have the same effect on projectiles? 

They do. Magnitudes are different. Planes are flown/guided, projectiles are not.
Whenever the question is asked by Flat Earthers the Round Earthers say that there is no correction needed because the atmosphere compensates for the Coriolis force or because of "conservation of momentum" which somehow magically causes curved motion even though inertia normally results in straight line motion per Newton's first law. 

This Stackexchange page attests to this consensus belief:

During the flight, you need to get up to use the restroom. There's one 10 rows in front of you, and another 10 rows behind you. Does it take longer to walk to the one that's moving away from you at 600 mph than the one that's moving towards you at 600 mph?

"No, because you're moving at 600 mph right along with it -- in the ground-based frame of reference. In the frame of reference of the airplane, everything is stationary.

Similarly, the airplane is already moving along with the surface of the Earth before it takes off. The rotation of the Earth has no direct significant effect on flight times in either direction.

That's to a first order approximation. As others have already said, since the Earth's surface is (very nearly) spherical and is rotating rather than moving linearly, Coriolis effects can be significant. But prevailing winds (which themselves are caused by Coriolis and other effects) are more significant that any direct Coriolis effect on the airplane."

None of the experts ever mention any Coriolis corrections in airplanes.

Sure they do. You just didn't read far enough down.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Coriolis is a factor, it's magnitude of such is utterly dependent upon the object it is affecting. Projectile v Plane. In planes, it's factored into Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) that are built into the planes you travel in. There are a lot of factors that dictate what a plane can do and what a projectile can do. Do some googling.

The misunderstanding here is how the TFES wiki throws the baby out with the bathwater:

The wiki argument is that artillery shots are often not very accurate so the Coriolis table must be moot in their manual. However, that argument would mean all the table corrections are moot, not just the Coriolis one. So why have table corrections for Elevation, Wind, Temperature/Density, Muzzle Velocity, etc., as well if they are not needed?

Those are uncertainty budgets. Those variable are not demonstrated to be accurate. If the shot isn't accurate they are compete guesses.

What is the illustration supposed to show? Looks like a straight baseline in that illustration to me.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 15, 2019, 09:38:50 PM »
In the 1960s a researcher named Ascher Shapiro claimed that bathtub vortex direction was due to the "Coriolis Effect":

Shapiro’s Bathtub Experiment
by Conor Myhrvold   
posted November 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Over forty years ago, in the 1960s, the world briefly became captivated with how a bathtub drains. Did something called the Coriolis effect influence the twirling water?

The Earth’s rotation influences how fluids swirl on the planet’s surface. It’s why low-pressure systems in the northern hemisphere twist counterclockwise. This phenomenon, known as the Coriolis effect, is the appearance of an object to deflect to one side in a rotating reference frame. Since it is such a tiny effect on small scales, no one had yet proven that this inertial force actually affects how water leaves a bathtub, despite many previous efforts.

In 1962, the same year that Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize for the discovery of the double helix, MIT professor Ascher Shapiro, an expert in fluid mechanics, set up an elaborate test to try to change that. Shapiro’s elementary experiment, which started with a bathtub, quickly turned into a complicated and ambitious undertaking that involved a tank six feet wide and six inches deep.

The Coriolis effect at MIT’s latitude, 42°, was just “thirty-millionths that of gravity, which is so small that it will be overcome by filling and even temperature differences and water impurities,” reported one of many newspapers and periodicals that covered the results of Shapiro’s experiment. After much tinkering to cancel out these interferences, and presumably a hefty water bill, Shapiro found the answer: the Coriolis effect does indeed cause a bathtub vortex in the northern hemisphere to swirl counterclockwise.

But even after his results were published in a letter to Nature, Shapiro’s confirmation drew the skepticism of readers. In correspondence with one reader, Shapiro noted: “Many results contradictory to this have been reported in the literature but all of them have involved faulty experiments due to a lack of realization of how sensitive the experiment is.” He was supported, however, by colleagues in the Northern hemisphere who confirmed the counterclockwise bathtub drainage, while those in the Southern hemisphere demonstrated the same effect in the opposite direction—a clockwise flow—just as anticipated.

In a world without electronic communication, where author correspondence was a more prolonged affair, a sort of chivalry existed between a scientist and a popular audience who took an interest in academics. Scrawled with a pencil on back-and-forth correspondences between Shapiro and his fans and housed today within a dusty and faded folder in the MIT archives are the records of reprints being sent, of questions being answered, and of careful and nuanced responses that understated Shapiro’s high standing at MIT. A Ford Professor at the time, and later elevated to Institute professor, Shapiro took time to send article reprints for those who asked for it and to answer mail from inquisitive readers, some of whom promoted dubious questions and claims.

...Who would have thought the swirl of a bathtub would have been a matter of great interest? For a seemingly insignificant problem, the bathtub controversy loomed large in Shapiro’s career until his death in 2004. The first line of his obituary in the Boston Globe read: “Dr. Ascher Shapiro wanted to get a handle on how fluids move whether they were swirling down the bathtub drain, or flowing through the human body.”

Controversy because other researchers were getting different and inconsistent results. Shapiro claimed that he could perform the experiment and that all other researchers were wrong.

The below shows that even with extreme care the Coriolis effect can be overwhelmed by very small perturbations such as how the lid is lifted.

At Tom Fink’s invitation, Professor Lloyd M. Trefethen of Tufts University, USA, spent a short sabbatical in Mechanical Engineering in 1964/65. Already famous for his work on surface tension phenomena, he led us into a repeat of the experiments on the bathtub vortex that had recently been conducted by Ascher Shapiro at MIT. After much careful design, a circular tank of some 2.4m in diameter and 0.4m depth was constructed and installed in one of the subterranean dungeons of the old Peter Nicol Russell building. Carefully designed procedures and their diligent execution resulted in absolutely conclusive results that were published in Nature [Trefethen, et al, 1965). A re-enactment for the local media was a disaster: Bilger and Tanner muffed the removal of the covering baffles creating a great vortex in the water that then went out the wrong way. ‘Scientists baffled’ cried the media. We even made Time magazine!

In Flow, Nature's Patterns, a Tapestry in three Parts by Dr. Phillip Ball the author gives an overview on p. 47:

A popular notion says that the rotation of the earth starts the bathtub vortex spinning. But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak. Biesel claimed that it cannot be responsible for the bathtub vortex because, contrary to popular belief, they may rotate in either direction at any place on the planet. But is that really so? In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved. We do know, however, why a small initial rotation of the liquid develops into a robust vortex. This is due to the movement of the water as it converges on the outlet. In theory this convergence can be completely symmetrical: water moves inwards to the plughole from all directions. But the slightest departure from that symmetrical situation, which could happen at random, may be amplified because of the way fluidflow operates.

An abstract at the Physical Society of Japan states:

It has long been controversial whether the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth plays a significant role in the generation of the bathtub vortex in small vessels such as bathtubs.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 15, 2019, 08:12:23 PM »
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:

This is the video that I just linked to. This experiment is subject to the shape of the drain and other common factors that create systemic errors.

The experiment needs to be done with different pools, different drains, with the water poured in with different directions and in controlled conditions. It needs to be performed many times for a conclusive result.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 15, 2019, 06:52:17 PM »
The equator demonstrations are a well known tourist attraction scam. They pour it in on the side of the tub they want it to spin in. The flow also has to do with the shape of the drain, and there is also a phenomenon where the water even changes the direction of spin mid flow.

Mainstream science was briefly fascinated with professional laboratory experiments of the Coriolis Effect on the spin of water drains at one point, but I have read that the results were inconclusive. One or two researchers claimed that they saw some consistent results, but their results were unable to be replicated, and there was discussion of systemic error due to drain shape or external elements. I even recall reading some reports of the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the laboratory was affecting the experiments. Reports of those water drain experiments seem tough to find at the moment, however. Once the Round Earth experiments start failing, the papers are left to rot somewhere, are not linked or referenced or shared, and they pretend it never happened.

Here is our current article on the matter of the Coriolis Effect:

From the talk page:

Topics for Further Research

In response to a video embedded in the Snopes link, showing the rotation of water in a 5 foot diameter pool which supposedly shows the Coriolis Effect in action, we are given a lead for further research by Rand Huso:

  “ This has been done before - I saw the experiment done in the '80s. The Coriolis is so small that small perturbations in the construction of the drain could easily be amplified and become much larger than the Coriolis. The proper way to conduct this test is to repeat it many times and take the exact environment "down under" and do the same thing. As I recall, the earlier experiment was repeated 100 times, and the numbers were 49 to 51 - completely inconclusive. ”

  “ the experiment has been done before. I love this presentation, but I'm unconvinced at their conclusion. What I saw before was in the Meteorology department at TAMU. Film. ”

It would be nice to find documentation of the professional experiments. I only wish I had saved what I found about the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the outside of the laboratory was affecting their controlled pool experiments.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 06:23:22 PM »
You can reverse image search, you can search for  terms such as NASA Earthrise Fake. Easy to figure out. No excuses for bad research and bad conclusions.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 05:14:23 PM »
No Tom, you presented two different versions of the same photo in a 'meme' that said heres a photo, heres that same photo with exposure upped. But those images weren't the same version. It's fair enough in the end you provided the actual sources of the images which were shown to be photoshopped, at which point, along with the source images, is an explanation of the edit.

I didn't fail at that, you failed to provide the original source image. The meme was in fact faulty... That's why I asked you to cite the source which you did. You can't say "haha you noticed there was a difference with the two images being claimed to be the same image, so you aren't qualified!!!"  ::)

Anyway I'm on you side here Tom, I'm willing to analyse these images with you but as I stated before, you need to provide the original images, not faulty memes.

When I posted the image I heard calls that I didn't look at the original image, and that if I was a better researcher I would see that it was clearly faked.

No. You are the bad researchers. Those NASA analysis' are not faked. The original image shows that it was edited. The embarrassment is on your end, for talking out of your rear without researching the matter for truth, which is what the defense of RET amounts to. You can easily research these claims to find out the matter for yourself. That meme is not the only discussion of this. But you would rather deny and make excuses and accusations without demonstrating those accusations.

Now you claim, with the same level of supposition, that the photo was edited, but that it was honestly edited, despite you not having done the proper amount of legwork to demonstrate that. This is why you guys cannot be trusted at all. You do not properly research your claims and make random statements without demonstrating the knowledge to back up those statements.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 04:47:04 PM »
First you guys were ranting that the photo was obviously faked, and now you are claiming that it was photoshopped by NASA!

Lets put aside that the versions of the photo do not show what you claim occurred, and lets also put aside that NASA clearly edited it out in the current version.

You failed at your image analysis. It was photoshopped. You are jokes. You clearly unqualified to tell us what is and is not a Photoshop, and what does and does not qualify as Photoshop analysis, and what would and would not qualify as a test of that Photoshop analysis.

There is zero reason to trust you. You are not good researchers, are dishonest and incompetent with your conclusions, and clearly only care about "proving" one thing.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 03:37:25 PM »
Are you joking?

"That's not a NASA photoshop!! FAKE!"

"Well, it's a NASA photoshop, but done for innocent reasons! I'm now going to ignore that they edited it out in the current version"

From you link, the white rectangular outline does not occur in any of the three versions they give. The leftmost is the original contrast, and then the versions in the middle and right are with the "different" contrast:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 03:01:10 PM »
Next I opened the current Feb 15 2019 version of the image and performed the same steps:

Looks like fraud to me. Does anyone want to argue that the above images are not photoshopped; either that the rectangle in the image means nothing, or that the rectangle was not photoshopped out in the current version?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 02:48:20 PM »
NASA relseased the image and then edited it out, as they always do when their fraud is exposed. It doesn't appear in all images.

Whoever put together that image did not indicate which version of the image they used for the left hand version. I find that it is more embarrassing that you did research the matter and find the source of the image.

Their fraud is still on the WayBackMachine, and is easily found. is an official LROC website. NASA's logo is at the bottom of the page.

Image Link:

Warning: Very Large Image

I downloaded the image and adjusted the levels in and...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 282  Next >