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 ... 137  Next >
21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 02:07:49 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 01:27:23 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 16, 2017, 01:21:16 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
It shows a greater appeal to round earthers for sure, I would say it's an advantage if it doesn't 'depend' on there being a necessary faking of all space travel missions, considering that it doesn't apply an extra burden of assumptions.
Otherwise, I don't see an issue with this greater appeal to mainstream science than ordinary FE, it's just that these main premises that follow are quite unique to this model.

With all of these appeals to authority you seem more interested in following the herd than finding out the truth.

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 14, 2017, 01:26:08 PM »
So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296

There is no expectation relating to decorum for civilians or armed services members who are indoors during the Retreat ceremony, in any branch of the military.


Literally the second paragraph.
Quote
Uniformed service members are required to stop what they're doing and salute the flag as its lowered during the song while civilians are required to place their hand over their heart.

That is for outdoor only. Surely you do not get all of your news from the fake Washington Post, do you?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 14, 2017, 03:17:01 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
Considering your counterpoints amount to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA" I'm not sure you're in much of a position to talk about defendability of arguments. Not to mention the state of the FE 'arguments' that you present.

As I recall many of these conversations seem to end with me asking for very basic evidence of your claims and then me getting bored and leaving the thread. This has happened in the GPS debates, distance debates, sunlight time debates, perspective debates, etc. Round Earth Theory does not seem very strong if it can be stumped with a request for basic evidence to back up an assertion.

I know that you guys stay in the thread long after I have left and whine and demand that it doesn't matter, divert the subject, eventually declaring yourselves the winner of the debate; but the entire matter is fairly transparent to anyone paying attention.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2017, 11:24:21 PM »
So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296

There is no expectation relating to decorum for civilians or armed services members who are indoors during the Retreat ceremony, in any branch of the military.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 13, 2017, 11:05:36 PM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.

28
Here's a diagram showing that the area shaded is as expected.

https://imgur.com/a/6AYee

I don't know if a direct image link works:


The illustration in the middle is not 95% luminosity.

29
There are a number stars that dim in inexplicable ways, and some scientists are assuming that there are partial alien dyson spheres surrounding those  stars, and this is why it dims in magnitudes not explainable with planets. ::)

again, not quite.  it's true that there is one star whose extreme variability is not understood at all, but no astronomer is "assuming" alien mega-structures.  on the contrary, they don't appear in the literature at all.  the most popular hypotheses are dust and comets: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-mysterious-dimming-tabby-star.html

it's also true that there are other types of variable stars unrelated to transits.  binary stars that are oriented the right way will eclipse one another, and the total brightness we observe will vary over the period of the orbit.  and some stars are intrinsically variable.  each case can be identified by the way brightness varies over time, and in the case of transits and eclipsing binaries, the variations are a consequence of the geometry of the system.

Your phys.org article admits that the explanation is insufficient.

    "While study authors have a good idea why Tabby's Star dims on a long-term basis, they did not address the shorter-term dimming events that happened in three-day spurts in 2017. They also did not confront the mystery of the major 20-percent dips in brightness that Kepler observed while studying the Cygnus field of its primary mission."

NewScientist.com is asserting that that comets can't explain it, and it may be aliens. The article cites astronomer Jason Wright as a proponent of the alien theory.

There are additional stars like this. It isn't the only one. Another one was found last month. In addition there are others with odd dimming patters which are given extraordinary explanations.

30
Exoplanets are discovered by looking at stars for months at a time and looking for little dips in brightness, which are assumed to be caused by planets, and really has nothing to do with geometric predictions.

not quite true.  you're leaving out two key points: 1) the manner in which the brightness changes over time, and 2) the periodicity of the changes, are direct consequences the geometry of the system.

they don't just measure a dip in brightness once and call it a day.  multiple observatories measure multiple periods.

you're also leaving out an important method: spectroscopy.  measuring changes in wavelength of absorption features on a spectrum tells you something about that object's relative velocity.  those changes also occur in a manner, and with a period, that depends on the geometry of the system.

here are a couple of fun simulators to play with: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/esp/esp.html  they're not based on real data points or anything, but you can get a feel for how the geometry of the system affects the brightness curves.

There are a number stars that dim in inexplicable ways, and some scientists are assuming that there are partial alien dyson spheres surrounding those  stars, and this is why it dims in magnitudes not explainable with planets. ::)

31
The quote "Astronomy has never changed" was made in reference to the methods of prediction used, you know, the subject of the sentences immediately preceding that sentence and the subject of this thread. Please reading comprehension more. Thank you.

Kepler and Newton, looking down from heaven, wonder why the world still has to suffer foolish beliefs like yours.  Neptune was not predicted on previous patterns, exoplanets are not detected using previous patterns.  It's like you limit your definition of astronomy to whatever suits you, like you have a blinding bias or something... weird.

The discovery of the planet Neptune is addressed in Earth Not a Globe.

Exoplanets are discovered by looking at stars for months at a time and looking for little dips in brightness, which are assumed to be caused by planets, and really has nothing to do with geometric predictions.

32
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: October 06, 2017, 10:02:18 AM »
Ok. When we see the clouds lit from below and Tom said because of perspective, so imagine we can teleport to the sun, and we standing on the top of 3000 miles up sun, then how can we lit those clouds from below?

When it is sunset the clouds would see the sun from the side at the horizon. From the sun's perspective it would likewise see the clouds from the side, at the horizon.

33
I will fill you in on something. The methods used in modern astronomy are still based on pattern prediction, and not really on a geometric model of the solar system. Such geometric models exist, but are inaccurate and not in use. The main methods are the same pattern-based methods the ancients used. Astronomy has never changed.
Debunked with 5 second Google search. A new near Earth asteroid discovered earlier this year. It has an orbit of 2.37 years. You suggest that could only know the pattern of an orbit after observing it. So wouldn't that take 2.37 years? (Reference below)

It was predicted based on the patterns of previous asteroids. By analyzing the speed of previous asteroids across the sky, and how they are aligned with the ecliptic, it is possible to predict the recurrence of a newly found body.

Quote
Pictures of far distant galaxies from Hubble. Pictures of gravitational lensing effects. Discover of exo-planets. Discovery of planets beyond Saturn. The ability to view stellar objects with non visible light such as radio or x-rays. Discovery of the microwave background. Etc. The idea that astronomy has never changed is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen here. And that's really saying something.

The quote "Astronomy has never changed" was made in reference to the methods of prediction used, you know, the subject of the sentences immediately preceding that sentence and the subject of this thread. Please reading comprehension more. Thank you.

34
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 06, 2017, 03:51:17 AM »
I have read the wiki article on sunsets. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

I have a question for Tom Bishop on this topic. Why is the vanishing point only relevant at the horizon?

From the wiki:
Quote
...since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so: (diagram omitted)

This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon...

Why wouldn't the converging perspective lines apply in all directions equally?

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.

35
I will fill you in on something. The methods used in modern astronomy are still based on pattern prediction, and not really on a geometric model of the solar system. Such geometric models exist, but are inaccurate and not in use. The main methods are the same pattern-based methods the ancients used. Astronomy has never changed.

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: October 05, 2017, 03:17:15 AM »
Quote
Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?
That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

That was addressed on page 1.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 04, 2017, 02:58:29 AM »
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.

What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.

Really? How do you KNOW that?

Quote
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that.  Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.

Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?

Quote
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.

I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.

I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further.  Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.

Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.

On page 38 of this book there is a list of cables and their lengths. The New York - Paris cable is listed with a length of just over 4000 miles.

It took me <5 minutes of googling to look this up. If you spent half as much energy trying to learn anything as you do on denialism, you might learn anything at all ever.


38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 04, 2017, 02:33:56 AM »
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.

What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.

Really? How do you KNOW that?

Quote
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that.  Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.

Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?

Quote
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.

I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.

I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further.  Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.

Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 03, 2017, 10:04:46 PM »
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.

Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge?   Remember, we're smarter than you are.

In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers.  The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".

They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.

So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.

They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.

The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.

So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles.  This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this.   Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.

But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.

The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.

Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork  must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.

How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?

How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?

How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 03, 2017, 03:14:32 PM »
All of which is completely irrelevant when using flight times for trips that have already happened. This data is available in bountiful supply all over. Not to mention the data suggests the vast majority of flights are within a slim error margin (5% or less) for time difference.

Do you have a source for that?

The worldwide rate of delayed flights is quite high. This article quotes the average airline industry rate of on-time arrivals is at 75%, and that is really just about planes which arrive late (about 25% will arrive late). It does not even consider how many planes arrive EARLY.

Quote
Once again, no distance is being used here, nor is any being calculated. Just the 'raw' data of flight time.

Please explain how we can know the distance between LA and New York by looking at the arrival times of airplanes without knowing anything about their speed.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 137  Next >