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 5 ... 282  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Suns lit area of the flat Earth
« on: February 07, 2019, 02:50:00 AM »
Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Suns lit area of the flat Earth
« on: February 07, 2019, 01:35:51 AM »
Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.

43
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth March at Millersville University
« on: February 06, 2019, 06:19:27 PM »
It doesn't appear to saying that to me Tom.  It actually says...

Quote
We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work

They didn't conclude that based on the method in the article, they concluded that a close sun was possible with the methods. They are talking about the sun's angular size, another matter, to which they did not read Earth Not a Globe or our Wiki.

With real science, experiments are controlled, analyzed, tested in many different scenarios, to the nth degree, and there is much more certainty with the results. See: Chemistry

44
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth March at Millersville University
« on: February 06, 2019, 05:55:32 PM »
From the Alternative Model section of that link it appears that Millersville is saying that a close sun is a possible interpretation from trigonometry, and can only attempt to discount it based on a different matter of the sun's angular size.

Another slogan:

"Millersville Physics Dept. Says
A Close Sun is Possible.
Astronomy Uncontrolled
& Based on Speculation."

45
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth March at Millersville University
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:36:10 PM »
I like the following slogans:

"NASA says that everything is
known about the world and you are
stupid to consider anything otherwise"

"Looks Flat to Me"

"Galileo Proved Earth Accelerates Upwards.
Bodies Fall Without Inertial Resistance."

"Moon Landing:
No Peer Review"

"Water Not Convex
Earth Not a Globe"

"We Demand Real Evidence,
Not Claims of Illusions"

"The Three Body Problem:
Newton's Sun-Earth-Moon System
Impossible
300 Years of Farcical Failure"

"Space is Fake!
Research Astronauts on
Wires, Bubbles in Space"

46
Can you point out where we claim this in our society's materials?

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 02, 2019, 02:46:35 AM »
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

An incorrect Wikipedia article writer thinking that the n-body problems have been solved does not make them solved. You need to demonstrate your case. That same article also claims that the perturbation methods "solve the n-body problems".

Why do you think that the n-body problems have been solved in the face of 400 years of mathematical failure? What was the solution?

Why would a n-body simulator use pattern-based epicycles? JPL DE is clearly stated to be using perturbations/epicycles, even if some are ignorant to what they are.

Who solved the n-body problems? Can you point us to the Nobel Prize winner?

You will not be able to answer or show any of this. Because you are wrong. The N-Body problems have not been solved. The Three Body Problems have not been solved. You have been unable to demonstrate that it has been solved.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 02, 2019, 02:25:26 AM »
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 02, 2019, 12:56:57 AM »
The sun and moon positions in the eclipse predictions that tell you where you can see the sun or the moon from come from JPL DE. From JPL DE's Wikipedia page:

Quote
"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws."

Obviously, the n-body problems of astronomy were not really solved.

The perturbation methods don't solve the n-body problems.

From our Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Quote
Gravitation Vs. Relativity
by Charles Lane Poor, PhD

Motion of the Planets p.132

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations = Epicycles

Quote
Motion of the Planets p.138

  “ The Tide Predicting Machine of the Coast and Geodetic Survey at Washington is a note-worthy example of the application of the mechanical method [of prediction via epicycles]. The rise and fall of the tide at any port is a periodic phenomenon, and it may, therefore, be analyzed, or separated into a number of simple harmonic, or circular components. Each component tide will be simple, will have a definite period and a constant amplitude; and each such component may be represented mechanically by the arm of a crank, the length of which represents the amplitude; each crank arm being, in fact, the radius of one of the circles in our diagram.

Such a machine was invented by Sir William Thomson and was put in operation many years ago. The machine at present in use at Washington was designed by William Ferrel. It provides for nineteen components and directly gives the times and heights of high and low waters. In order to predict the tides for a given place and year, it is necessary to adjust the lengths of the crank arms, so that each shall be the same proportion of the known height of the corresponding partial tide, and to adjust the periods of their revolutions proportionally to the actual periods. Each arm must also be set at the proper angle to represent the phase of the component at the beginning of the year. When all these adjustments have been made, the machine is started and it takes only a few hours to run off the tides for a year, or for several years. This machine probably represents the highest possible development of the graphical or mechanical method. It is a concrete, definite mechanical adaptation of the epicyclic theory of Hipparchus.

But, because the Coast Survey represents and predicts the movements of tidal waters by a complicated mass of revolving cranks and moving chains, does any one imagine for a moment that the actual waters are made up of such a system of cranks? No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions.

While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer. ”

Epicycles = Patterns

Quote
From the Wikipedia section on Special Perturbations (Archive):

  “ In methods of special perturbations, numerical datasets, representing values for the positions, velocities and accelerative forces on the bodies of interest, are made the basis of numerical integration of the differential equations of motion.[6] In effect, the positions and velocities are perturbed directly, and no attempt is made to calculate the curves of the orbits or the orbital elements.[2] Special perturbations can be applied to any problem in celestial mechanics, as it is not limited to cases where the perturbing forces are small.[4] Once applied only to comets and minor planets, special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.[2][7] ”

The prediction in astronomical almanacs also = patterns.

Quote
General Application

Perturbation methods are, in fact, prevalent in many areas of science. From Perturbations in Complex Molecular Systems | (Archive) we read the following:

  “ In general perturbation methods starts with a known exact solution of a problem and add “small” variation terms in order to approach to a solution for a related problem without known exact solution. Perturbation theory has been widely used in almost all areas of science. Bhor's quantum model, Heisenberg's matrix mechanincs, Feyman diagrams, and Poincare's chaos model or “butterfly effect” in complex systems are examples of perturbation theories. ”

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (Archive) echoes the same:

  “ This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula. ”

It appears that you are showing us the pattern-based models of astronomy.

You are mistaken on these matters of astronomy and astronomical prediction. Our website clearly demonstrates superior knowledge of these matters, compared to the dogma and assumptions that you guys are giving us.

Sadly, despite this, you guys will be unable to recognize that you are providing inferior demonstration of knowledge.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 11:34:09 PM »
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse at the end of his eclipse chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Rowbotham demonstrates that the matter is predictable with patterns. Where is the Round Earth model?

Where is the RE exhibited in the Saros Cycle or the moon calculators that tell you where you can see the moon from? I see words. No demonstration. Show us where RE is exhibited in the eclipse predictions.

51
Kaysing was head of technical publications for Rocketdyne from 1956 to 1963.

Rocketdyne built the engines which NASA used.

Is there any evidence he personally had any direct contact with NASA? Or did he merely document the interactions of others?

Maybe he was working in the Rocketdyne division that was designing rockets for the Russians? The desperation in the excuses is apparent. Stay in your thread and stop trying to debate a media entry.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 11:02:36 PM »
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 10:47:39 PM »
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map then? Strong evidence there.

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 10:28:37 PM »
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 10:17:02 PM »
Sure there is a spherical representation:



https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

That looks more like the Flat Earth map to me.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

Quote
A solar eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured.

Solar Eclipse Comparison

Of interest is that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:



On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be perfect arcs:



From  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm p.113

 “ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of[Pg 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200[Pg 115] B. C. to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years. ”

Further Reference

Also see this interesting comparison:


56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 09:46:18 PM »
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

There is no spherical representation. What evidence has been posted for that? Only imagination. What evidence has been posted in this thread for the assertion that it is based on a spherical model? None.

The patterns of the sun and moon repeat themselves. The eclipses come in patterns. All of that is entirely predictable with patterns.

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 09:26:45 PM »
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. A eclipse will repeat 18 years from now.

You can also use a moon or sun calculator or make your own calculator to see if the body will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astronomy is based on patterns, not RET.

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 08:46:20 PM »
If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

RE cannot predict "exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth". The Saros Cycle is used, not any n-body problems.

NASA Eclipse Website https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

From Resources -> Eclipses and the Saros we read a description of the Saros Cycle:

  “ The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well. ”

Feel free to count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned on NASA's eclipse website.

Google Search Term: "saros" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

No. of Results: 13,700

Google Search Term: "three body" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

No. of Results: 2 (duplicate text)

  “ The distance of apogee does not vary by much month to month although the value of perigee can change quite a bit. Minimum vs. maximum apogee is a 0.6% spread and minimum vs. maximum perigee is a 3.9% spread. If Newton couldn't solve the three-body problem I certainly can't ”

Three Body and n-Body Solutions, the mathematical simulation of the Solar System using Newton's Laws, are not used.

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory
« on: February 01, 2019, 08:36:52 PM »
I'm sorry you need someone to state exactly what I've put forth in my TL;DR in order to believe it.

You do not have a working model. What you quoted admits that it cannot be done, and that only two body orbits are possible.

Quote
I see no reason to continue to bash my head against this wall.

Yes, there is no point for you to continue this. Stop posting and go away. You do not have a working model, only four hundred years of ridiculous failure. Newton's equations don't work with three or more bodies, except with very specific and unrealistic scenarios. You have shown nothing to demonstrate that it does work. Your quotes admit this. The mathematicians admit this. The dancing around in this thread admits this.

60
From your link:

Quote
From 1956 to 1963 Kaysing also served as head of technical publications for Rocketdyne, where Saturn V rocket engines were designed and built.

Quote
The claim that he "worked with NASA" is vague and unclear, at best.

Looks like you debunked yourself.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 282  Next >