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 ... 307  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 05:30:07 PM »
You should go and ask them. I am not involved in that community and wouldn't know what theories they have.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 04:14:10 PM »
The shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something casting it. RE also asserts that there is an object near the sun that is casting a shadow.
I don't regard 93 million miles as "close". During a lunar eclipse the moon is in the earth's shadow.
The bit which makes no sense is the fact that no-one has ever observed the shadow object, as I said a solar eclipse would be an opportunity to do this.

Some people claim to see an object near the sun during solar eclipse and sometimes at other times. They believe that it's a massive gas giant called Nibiru that is orbiting close to the sun's vicinity and usually stays hidden due to the sun's effect on the sky. There is a community around it.
Some people claim to see loche ness monsters, big foot and aliens, do the people claiming to see this magical invisible yet not invisible object casting a shadow have any photographic or video evidence or a repeatable way for people to see it for themselves?

What makes you think that these people haven't thought to take pictures or video?

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 03:50:25 PM »
The shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something casting it. RE also asserts that there is an object near the sun that is casting a shadow.
I don't regard 93 million miles as "close". During a lunar eclipse the moon is in the earth's shadow.
The bit which makes no sense is the fact that no-one has ever observed the shadow object, as I said a solar eclipse would be an opportunity to do this.

Some people claim to see an object near the sun during solar eclipse and sometimes at other times. They believe that it's a massive gas giant called Nibiru that is orbiting close to the sun's vicinity and usually stays hidden due to the sun's effect on the sky. There is a community around it.

44
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 12:06:06 PM »
According to Newtonian Gravity bodies of different masses are pulled at different rates towards the Earth, and they are slowed to the exact same rate of acceleration through inertial resistance via Newton's Mass Equivalence Principle. It's an odd coincidence since inertia is a universal property which still exists independently in a weightless environment and has nothing to do with the gravity field it is in. If the gravitational field of Earth were any stronger or weaker, the inertia would be the same, and there would not be an exact equivalency.

This, and other elements, were too big of a coincidence, which is why Einstein came up with his upwardly accelerating Earth ideas with Einstein's Equivalence Principle and GR.

Cavendish and Neptune discussed here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment
https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 11:59:00 AM »
The shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something casting it. RE also asserts that there is an object near the sun that is casting a shadow.

46
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:22:17 AM »
Quote
Tom, I don't think that the inertial-gravitational mass equivalence is a coincidence.  Rather, it's a natural consequence of Einstein showing that gravity and acceleration are equivalent.

How is it not a coincidence that inertia could slow two different bodies being pulled at two different rates towards the earth to an exact same rate of acceleration by multiple decimal points?

Einstein said it was a weird coincidence too. He came up with two versions of gravity: The Equivalence Principle and General Relativity. The Equivalence Principle says that gravity is like being in an upwardly accelerating elevator and General Relativity applies that theory to a round world by saying that gravity is a function to the 'geometry of space' in the vicinity of the earth. The objects are stationary and the earth is accelerating into the objects through the curvature of space.


General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false

Quote
  “ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

47
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 12:29:49 AM »
Here is a image of what occurs on Earth:



Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass are the same. Both bodies will fall together. As Salvaiti said above:

Quote
An heavier body is attracted with a greater force (not energy!) and thus with greater acceleration, but inertia slows it down by an equal amount.

In intergalactic space the gravity is gone. Bodies will float, not fall, but will still exhibit inertial resistance.

On Jupiter the bodies will fall rather than float. Gravitational pull/acceleration in red is much longer and stronger than the image above. Yet the laws regarding inertial resistance should be the same and unchanged from the other scenarios, as it is a universal property unconnected to the gravity of the environment, as demonstrated by the weightless environment example.

If inertia is the same, but gravity is different, then the bodies should fall at different rates in relation to each other.

The inertial-gravitational mass equivalence coincidence on Earth is a piece of evidence against the Copernican and Mediocrity principles: We are indeed special.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0004/0004027.pdf


48
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 10:34:11 PM »
See my example above with how inertia behaves in intergalactic weightless space far away from any gravity sources: It is the same. When an elephant smacks into you in space at 50mph, the impact of the force will be the same as on Earth. When you are shot in the chest with a bullet in space: you are going to die.

The laws of inertia do not depend on the gravity of the environment. It is a universal property. The laws of inertia are the same on Earth, in weightless space, and therefore on Jupiter. It does not "change".

Gravity does change in different gravity environments, however. Thus gravitational mass will not be equal to inertial mass.

A very wild and surprising coincidence, indeed, that Gravitational Mass should exactly equal Inertial Mass on Earth to the best resolution of modern physics.

49
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:42:58 PM »
Quote from: spherical
The gravitational mass and inertial mass on Jupiter will be the same, since larger mass produces larger gravity acceleration, so F=ma still equal to Gm1m2/r²

It would not be the same. If you take a bowling ball from Earth to Jupiter, it still has its same mass in F=ma.

The gravity of Jupiter is stronger and it is pulling the bowling ball down at a faster rate of acceleration. Gravity increases, but the laws of inertia remain the same.

Consider a weightless environment out in intergalactic space far away from any gravity source: The laws of inertia do not change in a gravity-free environment. They are universal. It still takes more force and effort to push something more massive through a weightless environment than it does to push something less massive. Those laws don't go away.

If an elephant flies into you at 50mph in weightless space, it's still going to hurt you. See mainstream RE literature:

Quote from: Northwestern University
Objects in space follow the laws or rules of physics, just like objects on Earth do. Things in space have inertia.

50
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:18:41 PM »
Quote
You are climbing the mirrors, as we say in my country. You say:"a bowling ball would move at a greater rate of acceleration towards Jupiter than it would move towards the Earth. " And a feather would move at the very same rate of acceleration (in the vacuum of course) i would add.

Since you agree that gravity would be greater on Jupiter, then there must be an inequality with the laws of inertia which do not change on Jupiter. Inertia depends on mass, and is an intrinsic property of a substance. If you bring a bowling ball to Jupiter, the inertia is the same as it is on Earth. Hence Gravitational Mass != Inertial Mass.

51
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:10:12 PM »
Tom, why do you think that the earth is the only place in the universe where gravitational mass = inertial mass?

As you already said, the gravitational acceleration on Jupiter is greater than that of the earth, which means that it would take a greater force to impart that same greater acceleration on the same mass.  As long as you believe that acceleration is indistiguishable from gravity, then it stands to reason that gravitational mass should equal inertial mass all over the universe.

The laws of inertia aren't different on other planets. The laws of inertia and motion are the same, just like the law of conservation energy, Archimedes Principle, etc, are the same.

On a different planet the gravity would change, but the other laws would remain the same. If there is an inequality between gravity and inertia then gravitational mass != inertial mass.

52
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 08:59:42 PM »
That doesn't make much sense.

Consider the RE Jupiter: Gravity is much higher there, right? Assuming that it had a solid surface, when dropping a bowling ball from an altitude of 10 feet above it's surface, a bowling ball would move at a greater rate of acceleration towards Jupiter than it would on the Earth.

Yet the laws of inertia are the same on Jupiter as they are on the Earth. On Jupiter Gravitational Mass != Inertial Mass. The same would apply to an area where gravity is much lesser, such as a moon somewhere.

Why should the Earth be a special coincidental place where not even the best research laboratories with the best equipment can find a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that Gravitational Mass = Inertial Mass?

53
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 07:33:48 PM »
Bowling balls, books, and feathers 'drop' at the same rate of acceleration.

Anything which is pushed or pulled through space is subject to the laws of inertia. More massive bodies exhibit more resistance. It is more difficult to push a car in neutral down a road than it is to push a marble.

How does any theory of gravity that moves bodies through space towards the earth apply varrying amounts of energy or force to each body in order to move them all at the same rate? In order to move something through space, energy or force must be involved. Why should it adjust itself for all bodies like that?

54
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 30, 2019, 03:11:22 PM »
Albert Einstein was the probably proginator of the idea of an upwardly accelerating Earth. See the first video on https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration He used it in his thought experiments to explain Gravity and later adopted it into the Round Earth model with GR.

As for the person who integrated that concept into the Flat Earth discussions and models, no one seems to know. We searched the other theflatearthsociety.org forum which was started in 2007 and the UA concept was already part of FET since the beginning of that forum's creation. It's not a concept in Earth Not a Globe.

It seems to not be a concept discussed by Shenton or Johnson in their materials, which is to be expected since theirs were more biblical and wouldn't have a moving earth. My guess is that it is either from old flat earth discussions on Usenet or possibly the Zetetic Society or Universal Zetetic Society which existed between the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, which was much larger in numbers than any of the post-1950's societies up to present, were philosophically diverse, and would have existed at a time when Einstein came up his Equivalence Principle.

Unfortunately much of the materials of the old Zetetic socities were scattered or lost around the time of World War I and World War II when those societies died out and it is difficult to compile their research.

Dionysios might know where it comes from.

55
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: June 28, 2019, 06:04:14 PM »
On the Weight Variation by Latitude see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

This experiment is uncontrolled. Can you reference where these experiments have been conducted in vacuum chambers?

56
How would disproving some, likely selected, claims that someone found on the internet, or coming up with a "plausable" explanation  for something, do anything to prove that NASA went to the moon? A show about coming up with some explanations for a few internet claims?

If I can explain something, it's proven? Is that how things work?

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: June 22, 2019, 05:08:31 PM »
Alexander Gleason, in his "Is the Bible from heaven? Is the Earth A Globe?" has some letters from navigators which suggest longer distances in the South. The book is available online from archive.org and the letters appear around p.365.

Eric Dubey's "IFERS" group claims to have some research on that topic.

Some say that the naval shipping companies use a Flat Earth Monopole map: https://www.favosity.com/blog/naval-shipping-map-is-ae-flat-earth-map

For the most part I have always preferred the Bi-Polar model and haven't really looked into collecting those claims.

58
I would disagree Tom. That is the very point of the straight edges. Notice how straight they remain in comparison to the amazingly smooth curve of the horizon.
You've labeled them as "STRAIGHT(ISH)". Do you not see the striking contrast?

The control in the experiment is supposed to remain straight. However, it is not straight. This is a demonstration of the presence of distortion in the camera sensor.

If you go through that Metabunk thread Mick West explains that the camera can have different amounts of distortion in different spots.

The Jeran video I posted above shows that taking a picture of a straight rectangle on a computer screen can produce distortion effects to make the straight line appear curved.

59
From the photos that author shows, which appear to be the sames ones in the video, it looks more like distortion to me:

Straight:



Then the author shows us a version with the beams tilted in comparison with the horizon. In this one we can see that there is clearly curvature on the beams:



Funny how the beams morph and curve like that.

Mick West says it himself:

Quote
>If it's the optical aberration called 'distortion' (i.e., a varying plate scale with field position) then it shouldn't vary randomly. It may vary with focal length and focus setting of the lens, but not randomly.

>>But as I noted above, it DOES vary randomly, and I suspect the cause is the image stabilization moving the sensor. This is subject to random inputs, and so is random.

Cameras are not suited for this sort of test. There is a lot of distortion in the results.


60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything
« on: June 14, 2019, 01:00:46 AM »
It sounds like you just demonstrated the point of the car analogy. The conditions to travel in a perfectly straight line without navigational aid are impractical.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 307  Next >