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 ... 290  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: Today at 07:51:20 PM »
Can the criticism of "we should feel the wind" be restated? If the fluid of the atmosphere is contained in some manner, like water in a bowl, then we should feel greater weight of the atmosphere at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. Which we do. See: Atmospheric weight, barometers.

Per the speed of light: Frames of reference and relative motion are concepts which long predate Einstein's flavor of it. I believe that there are existing experiments in literature which suggest that frames of reference are independent of each other, and which form the basis for the current theories about it, but it would be a research project to collect them.

2
It's an interesting idea, but probably not suited for the forum format. It would be better for an entirely differently structured debate platform in which each side gives arguments, which are presented and voted on or commented on for user participation.

I've always thought that this place should be primarily a platform for debate of ideas on merit rather than "talk to the flat earthers," of which there are comparatively few.

It is possible for the Foucault Pendulum to be an inconsistent or invalid experiment, or explained through other means, without the earth needing to be flat, as an example. Such a platform would further FET without forcing its users to argue for or believe in things that they do not believe in. It would take careful consideration and presentation... A debate club v.2.

3
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Need help with map
« on: Today at 12:05:23 AM »
I know there are some transform tools that will reproject a Mercator map that you upload into different projections. However, the names of those tools escape me at the moment and that is about all the help I can provide.

4
As a Flat Earth information repository, the Wiki should include information on the popular alternative models, simply because they are popular and people want to learn more about the beliefs. Ideally there would be some sort of patrolled submission or edit process where people can submit to the Wiki editors for review for glaring errors and chicanery. However, at the moment, if you can help to document some of the models in the Projects forum, with some detail, we can start on an alternative models section, and then probably advertise that there are various models.

Most of the Wiki pages on phenomena are pretty model-agnostic, and we wrote them to be that way.

5
Flat Earth Community / Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« on: April 17, 2019, 01:57:37 PM »
I am considering whether or not to de-list the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

https://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.

6
Addressing items such as the Foucault Pendulum or the Cavendish Experiment is a matter of all science, for all models, and tells us what is happening and what would need to happen -- whether it is explained with a mechanism, and which one, or whether the experiment is inconsistent and of questionable value. Addressing experiments or phenomena is a description of nature and the earth, and is not "RE".

To the OP:

Celestial Rotation Monopole Model: P-Brane: Anti-rotation in the south explained by perspective

Celestial Rotation Bi-Polar Model: New Flat Earth Model Tears Globe A New AE

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Fauxcault pendulum
« on: April 16, 2019, 06:21:57 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Right of the start of the document it says:

"It is important for the photo beam adjustments to be made accurately for power to be applied equally in all directions to the armature"

Your statement of "Right of the start of the document" kills your argument.

Then, after that in the document, it says to spend several days adjusting it until one has determined that the "precession is operating properly":

“Pay close attention to the photo beams alignment. This adjustment can effect the Ball’s precession around the pit. It may require a couple of days to determine if precession is operating properly. Precession is a function of the Earths rotation.”

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Telescope images of moon
« on: April 16, 2019, 06:15:18 PM »
I found these recently online and found them interesting. Apparently one can observe evidence of the moon landing through telescopes.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2012/07/Flag-Apollo-17-1024x1024.jpg

These are not "telescope images of the moon" and one cannot "observe evidence of the moon landing through telescopes."

The images are from the LROC spacecraft.
 
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/537

9
The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

10
Quote
What can actually prove to a flat earther that they are wrong? All of the observations of the sun moon and stars work 100% on a globe model, and there is no flat earth model that compares.

Astronomical prediction isn't based on a globe model: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Quote from: Tim Osman
Here is what happens when you drive across the bonneville salt flats with extremely precise and expensive equipment and then model it .5% accuracy with the radius - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Display+Geo+Data&data=Rte_80_WB_190326_radius - does this have anything to do with refraction?

Here is a quote from that same website you posted:

Quote
Influence of atmospheric Refraction

The line of sight to the horizon is rarely a straight line as assumed by the simple formulas, but is curved downwards due to the temperature and pressure changes of the atmosphere near the ground (refraction). This means that you can see much further than the calculations with the straight line suggests.

In extreme cases, e.g. if warm air is above cold water the refraction can lead the light hundreds of kilometers along the water surface! The result is that the earth is seemingly flat.

Source Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction

This fact has been known for centuries among land surveyors and seafarers.

Note: You can trust your eyes only at short distances. Over large distances, the light path through the atmosphere is disturbed in an unpredictable way. It's nothing like it seems!

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?

Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.

11
I am seeing "Strawman! We didn't present that.... we only presented or are defending the video that presented that..."

Yes, you did present that to us with those actions.

If this is what you really want to talk about, who presented what, then I can predict that this discussion will not be going anywhere. We've had the same discussion here plenty of times before with the same result: We accuse of RE of waving a magic wand to make their model agree with observation and then there is some sort of statement of incredulity and that's the end of the matter. Little attention is paid to the inherent fallacy that is strongly insisted on.

The fact is that the observation do not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Fauxcault pendulum
« on: April 13, 2019, 07:58:47 PM »
Quote
We read the following from an installation guide:

http://www.academypendulums.com/pdf/Mark2FoucaultInstallation.pdf

“ Pay close attention to the photo beams alignment. This adjustment can effect the Ball’s precession around the pit. It may require a couple of days to determine if precession is operating properly. Precession is a function of the Earths rotation. ”

We are instructed to spend several days adjusting the alignment of the photo beams, which affects the pendulum's precession, an element which is supposedly a function of the earth's rotation, until we have determined that the "precession is operating properly"

You left out the preceding two sentences from the above quote:

"It is important for the photo beam adjustments to be made accurately for power to be applied equally in all directions to the armature. Two pairs of photo beams trigger the magnet’s power as the cable swings through the center."

This is the exact opposite of what you are alleging. It is crucial to calibrate the photo beams that trigger the swings "for power to be applied equally in all directions." If the power isn't applied equally then you don't have an unbiased swing.

Modifying the alignment until you achieve your desired result and then passing it off as a demonstration of the earth's rotation is called fraud, QED.

Since when are you against calibrating an observational instrument? You seemed to be calibration crazy when it came to talking about water level tubes just a few threads ago.

And as mentioned above the alignment calibration is to make sure the power is applied equally in all directions so it doesn't influence the swing direction.

The word "calibrate" doesn't even appear in that section. You are just making things up.

The sections say that we need to spend several days aligning something that affects the precession but makes no reference to "calibration" or how we are to calibrate it .

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law Of Perspective
« on: April 13, 2019, 05:36:46 PM »
I think that Stack knows what the Wiki says. We've only discussed it many times... It's the same argument that was in Earth Not a Globe.

FET should be severely criticized, as it can only help it. No one gets banned for that here. But some effort should be made to look into the materials about it if it is to be critiqued. Knowing what those arguments or explanations say, and then ignoring them is, to my opinion, a bit of a disingenuous approach.

Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. That seems pretty fair.

14
Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Fauxcault pendulum
« on: April 13, 2019, 06:45:38 AM »
Modifying the alignment until you achieve your desired result and then passing it off as a demonstration of the earth's rotation is called fraud, QED.

16
His desire is implicit in his assertion of a round earth and the 'science' of standard refraction equations that allows him to get the observation somewhere close to calculation.

The next step is to demonstrate that the premise or underlying mechanism is actually true. The fact that it's an old equation without good demonstration of the underlying mechanism behind it makes it more invalid, not more valid!

If you think you can do it, go ahead. Until then it is an undemonstrated hypothesis that has nothing going for it except for an equation which relies on, at least for the purpose of the discussion, another hypothesis -- a round earth. The argument is speculating on two different hypothecal equations, one an idealized earth, and another a compensation designed  to get a result, and then claiming that result is a proof for both. Insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law Of Perspective
« on: April 13, 2019, 04:41:25 AM »
What does the Wiki say about the size of the sun throughout the day?

18
It certainly sounds like the content you posted is talking about a refraction analysis and how much the observations agree with it. From the YouTube Transcript:

Quote
16:50

atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied
phenomenon and will always occur to a
greater or lesser extent on a spherical
earth because light traveling initially
in a straight line towards the camera
from an object will get closer to the
surface of the earth as it moves to the
camera and then again get further away
from the surface of the earth as it
approaches the camera
[Music]
but certainly in the case of this
observation that's what will be
happening and therefore light is
traveling through different densities of
air and as we know different densities
of a medium have different refractive
index indices and therefore will cause
the light to bend slightly to refract so
atmospheric refraction should be taken
into account here and that will affect
this relative ball heights as they call
it the relative height of these hills on
a globe earth and that will affect the
angular sizes so they've not use the
correct angular sizes for any of their
observations or any of their analysis

...

20:39

let's see what happens if we use figures
that include atmospheric refraction and
include the correct height for the
bridge here is my version of their or
their method again I've placed a ruler
at the base of the bridge tower


Hence it is an admission and a claim that light is bending... but is only bending to how he desires it to bend.

19
I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.

The author of your first video says that the observations almost match what RET refraction predicts.

See:



Then he says "FE'ers don't wet yourself yet" and brings up another mechanism that might correct the inaccuracy, and comes back and says that it does match what is predicted (by refraction).

Even if there are equations that could, as a general rule of thumb, predict where things would be on if the earth were a globe and light was curved in some sort of standard schema, verification of those equations is merely verification of equations of what would need to happen if the earth were a globe...

We already know that someone did study the matter for those equations by the mere fact that they exist. It is not a proof of a globe. If it is anything at all, assuming that everything which was posted is entirely honest and accurate, it is merely evidence for those equations which depict what would need to happen with curvy light if the earth were a globe.

20
I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what RET refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 290  Next >