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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 290  Next >
21
All of the above is invalidated by an observation which should not be visible on a globe, which you can search for and find plenty of.

Inconsistency makes the sinking ship effect invalid as a proof of a globe.

From your video:



Assuming that his work is accurate (I did not bother to check), it "almost" fits what refraction predicts, meaning that it doesn't fit what RET would predict without refraction at all.

Sizes and elevations never do agree with RET. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.

22
Hi Tim,

Your pictures provide valuable information. In my opinion the current status of this matter is that we are past the point of single pictures. All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter of sinking. Sometimes bodies in the distance are sunken and sometimes they are not. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a time-lapse is worth a thousand pictures.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction

23
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Fauxcault pendulum
« on: April 11, 2019, 01:18:30 PM »
There is a page on the device at https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

We are told in a museum instillation guide to spend several days adjusting it until we get the desired results:

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"

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 10, 2019, 11:37:23 PM »
The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?

If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.

In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.

The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" is insufficient on this matter, as this "experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration, as slight errors in alignment in the foreground can create large errors many miles away. 

If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is really no more than an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. It is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 10, 2019, 11:02:08 PM »
I mainly post things to the Wiki that the entire community has discussed several times. I post the community's consensus position. The method I described above is strong, has been discussed by the community at length, and does not rely on leveling tools that need to be calibrated or carefully aligned. That method for finding eye level should be in the Wiki, with examples.

The angular diameter method is strong, whereby this is not strong:




You yourself gave no disagreement to the method I described. As I said, we will need more details from JTolan on his specific steps and, if we determine it is accurate, as a community, then we can include some of his examples.

If you view some of his videos, JTolan is claiming to see mountains and structures that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth with his IR camera. So far his observations do not appear to be distortion.

See the previous thread we had on the topic: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 10, 2019, 05:05:19 PM »
It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.

If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the  position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 10, 2019, 05:53:52 AM »
The scale is not based on a leveling experiment, and so there is nothing to calibrate. The scales JTolan creates in his videos are based on the knowledge of his position, the distance to bodies in the distance, and the concept of radians and angular sizes.

I'll invite JTolan to come back to the forum and break down his process step-by-step, for our knowledge, and inclusion in the Wiki. If the scale is accurate, it has some important consequences.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon
« on: April 10, 2019, 12:24:03 AM »
The moon moves at a slightly different rate than the sun. After 14 days, at the same time point in the day, the moon is on the other side of its orbit. It stands to reason that the process may appear reversed.

29
Flat Earth Community / Dr. John D. Bedford Canal Experiments
« on: April 08, 2019, 10:51:43 PM »
Dr. John D. will be performing experiments on the Bedford Canal on April 13th. I find the matter to be interesting because, other than an attempt some time back that encountered lots of heat effects and extreme distortion in the distance, there have been no good modern repeats of the experiment on this canal.



Initial reconnaissance video from March 31st:


30
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 08, 2019, 09:16:01 PM »
I like where Curious Squirrel is going with his line of thinking.

In the past there has been a lack of interest in EA theories, since there was no evidence that light was bending upwards. However, in the last year there has been some evidence that light is bending at large scales. JTolan has some interesting videos on his channel where a camera with an infrared filter is taken up on a plane and he is able to see much further than the Round Earth Theory should allow.

In his videos he performs analysis showing that, although he can see various bodies much further than should be seen in his videos, the horizon is never where it should be on either a Flat Earth or a Round Earth prediction.

Infrared Flight over Gulf of Mexico HD1080 (16:00 mark)



"Globe Horizon" is the prediction for the globe. "Globe Horizon (4/3R)" is the globe earth + standard refraction theory.

If the above analysis is accurate it would suggest that either:

- The earth is round and massive downwards bending of light is occurring
- The earth is flat and massive upwards bending of light is occurring
- Light is traveling in straight lines and the earth is something else (ie. a globe much larger than claimed, other)

If the earth is flat, JTolan's work might suggest that light is bending upwards on a large scale.

Previous Thread: IR Video from FL310 -> 500 mile visibility?

31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 07, 2019, 07:17:54 PM »
It may be that the Sun and Moon are high enough bodies that the vanishing point, or atmolayer buildup, or whatever is limiting light and visual propagation on the surface, has less effect between bodies of higher altitudes. Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon
« on: April 06, 2019, 01:13:27 AM »
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances. There is some agreement in the Flat Earth literature and by the wider Flat Earth community that, whatever their distance, they manifest as projections upon the atmosphere and are personal to the observer.

A projection may turn to face you. As an example of something in the atmosphere that turns to face you, consider rainbows. They are never seen from the side-on.

33
Flat Earth Community / Re: Koreshan Community and the Hollow Earth
« on: April 05, 2019, 10:06:35 PM »
The Concave Earth Theory is an offshoot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Some of Rowbotham's experiments are used as evidence. The current main website of the Concave Earth "Society" is The Wild Heritic. They have some interesting content.

Per the concave earth experiments, I believe that some of the sight experiments that they promote are true. Light seems to have a habit of bending upwards and downwards throughout the day.

- Sinking Ship Effect Caused By Refration (tfes.org) - Several examples of light bending up and down

- A surveyor named Wilhelm Martin performs an experiment showing that light seems to bend upwards and downwards throughout the day. (Wild Heretic)

It is my opinion that, due to this, the most compelling experiments are the ones which take refraction into account or provide multiple control points, such as Rowbotham's Experiment 2.

On analysis of Rowboham's second experiment, if the earth were a globe or concave, one important remark would be that it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the flat earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.
« on: April 05, 2019, 01:09:22 AM »
He's comparing the temperature of space to the temperature of the moon. This does not tell us whether the light of the moon cools objects.

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.
« on: April 04, 2019, 09:18:13 PM »
It seems that this very question of "cold moonlight" is fairly popular on several of the scientific Q&A boards.  Here's one from Quora:
There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube claiming that this simple little experiment proves that:

“Moonlight is cold, which means the Moon is not reflecting sunlight as we have been told, so we have been lied to by ‘scientism’ and evil NASA — therefore the Earth is flat!”

They are wrong.

The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.

When an object (or surface) is covered or shaded with a hand, roof, tree or cloud, it radiates less of its heat into the night air, and it will become slightly warmer than an object (or surface) that is exposed to the open night sky.

Actually, the Moon’s light (which is, of course, reflected sunlight) doesn’t have anything to do with it at all. It’s all about Radiative cooling.

Temperatures of surfaces under an unobstructed night sky will lose more of their heat than surfaces with obstructions, roofs, trees or clouds over them, and this happens even on nights when the Moon isn't present (which makes it harder to see, of course).

This sounds like a quite reasonable explanation to me.

That article is talking about the YouTube cold moonlight experiments, where things are left outside at night in moonlight and under the shade of a tree. The scientists I quoted were not leaving tin foil and other things outside. Light is collected and concentrated directly from the moon with lenses and special equipment.

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.
« on: April 04, 2019, 07:14:34 PM »
Quote
how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Why? I don't find the subject to be a debatable matter.

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham. I am sure that they imagined some things to explain it at the time too.

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:11:48 PM »
It was science and multiple astronomers and scientists who were claiming that stars sometimes occulted the moon and that the light of the moon registered as either no change or caused a cooling effect with the special and sensitive tools used. Those are their claims. Rowbotham references them.

Rowbotham says that many experiments on moonlight have shown no heat increase or at times even a cooling effect:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Quote
    The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---

    "If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair's breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment." 1

    "This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon." 2

    "The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied by a coloured fluid. In this instrument, when caloric is absorbed by it, the black ball takes up more than the other, and the air it encloses increasing in elasticity, the liquid is driven out. This instrument is so delicate that it indicates even the millionth part of a degree; and yet, in the experiment alluded to, it gave no result." 1

    "The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times. Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced." 2

    In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

Other references --

Dr. William LeRoy Broun says:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Lz5AAAAAYAAJ&dq=tyndall%20concentrated%20moonlight%20cold&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
    Even when the moonlight has been concentrated by large concave mirrors on delicate thermometers they have failed to cause any increase of temperature. One astronomer thought that he has obtained a degree of heat from the moon on the top of Teneriffe; but his instrumental means were imperfect. Professor Tyndall says that his experiments indicated rays of cold from the moon.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

https://books.google.com/books?id=44oQ80CCe9AC&dq=Effect%20of%20Moonlight%20on%20Selenium&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
Effect of Moonlight on Selenium

    The effect of moonlight on the selenium was tried during the month of January 1875. [details follow]

    ...These experiments show that exposure to cold produces a change in the selenium in the same direction as exposure to moonlight

    ...From these and a variety of other experiments which have already been described, and which point all in the same direction, we conclude that for a slight increase of temperature the resistance of the selenium is greatly increased, and for a slight lowering of temperature the resistance is greatly diminished

https://books.google.com/books?id=QRNLAQAAMAAJ&dq=moonlight%20galvanometer%20cold&pg=PA422#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote
    But with Seebeck's discovery of the exactation of electricity by the action of heat upon vertain electrical conductors came a method of detecting changed of temperature infinitisimally small. When plates of two metals, say bismuth and antimony, are soldered together and the point of junction is heated, an electric current is established from one metal to the other; this may be carried off by writes and caused to deflect a galvanometer, the needle of which becomes an index whereby the greater or less intensity of the current can be measured; and since the current varies with the warmth that generates it, the measure of the one becomes a measure of the other, and the metal plates and needle together form a thermometer very different from the instrument to which we generally apply that name.

    Now, by multiplying the metal plates and increasing the delicacy of the galvanometer, any degree of sensitiveness can be secured; indeed the instrument may be rendered so acute as to be unmanageable, the warmth of a man's body several yards off sufficing to set the needle a-quivering.

    Melloni was the first to apply it, in some of his early experiments he succeeded in measuring the vital heat of different insects and in detecting the warmth accompanying the luminous glow of phosphorous. It was while performing this last test of the powers of his new calorimeter that he bethought himself of trying it upon the moon. So he concentrated the lunar rays, by means of a metallic mirror, upon the face of his thermopile, in the hope of seeing the needle swing in the direction indicating heat; but it turned the opposite way, proving that the anterior and exposed surface of the pile was colder than its posterior face. Here was an anomaly. Did the moon, then, shed cold?

    [author goes on to attempt an explanation for the observation]

    ....

    Mr. Park Harrison, who has devoted a vast amount of time to the collation of meteorological observations, finds unmistakable evidence of them. But a strange apparent anomaly is revealed :--When the moon gives us most warmth we feel the greatest cold! The explanation of this lies in the fact of the slight clearing tendency above alluded to. The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

More details on Prof Tyndall's cold moonlight experiments:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3w5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=concentrated+moonlight+cold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtuOshoXhAhUirlkKHU3NAL8Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false


38


In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.

39
The experiment is subject to a number of possible systematic issues. For one thing, the experimenters are using colored water, which makes it difficult to see if the surface is level or not. The full upper surface is seen when the eye is above the water column, but when the column is above the eye one can't easily see through the colored water to see if it's level or not. This makes it more likely to be too high than too low.



Another issue is that they are aligning the upper surface, which is not level. From Encyclopedia Brittanica:



From p.4:





If we were to tilt the device, lowering down the bottom lip of the background container to match the bottom lip of the foreground device, we can clearly see that it would be a different result.

40
Quote
The matter is not impeached simply because you can reference a YouTube video, or can find a alternate device which was faulty, or can provide a quotation about surveying from an obviously biased source.

Actually, it is. These people put their devices under a little scrutiny, and found that they were imperfect. Why should we assume that the people who did not put their devices under scrutiny are perfect? If some devices were found to be imperfect, then anyone doing this experiment should scrutinize their tools as well.

Obviously biased? Is the surveyor quoted a flat earther?

We must always ensure that our tools are accurate for the job. The fact that anyone could think that we do not need to ensure accuracy says volumes. I find your argument that testing for accuracy is not needed to be totally invalid.

It may be that the horizon does drop at higher altitudes for various reasons, but this tool may be unreliable to show us exactly where eye level is.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 290  Next >