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 ... 133  Next >
Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 18, 2017, 10:47:24 AM »
A constellation over the equator would be seen in a mirror image from South and North perspectives yes but it would be the SAME constellation. What I am wondering is why DIFFERENT constellations can be seen from Australia and the UK not just different views of the same ones?

That is because the perspective theory of the Ancient Greeks that parallel perspective lines travel for infinity before meeting is incorrect. It was decided that this was the case, for some reason, but that was never proven or demonstrated.

The perspective lines approach each other and meet at a finite point in the distance, as they are observed to do in a railroad perspective scene; meaning that we cannot see for infinity and that the view of the celestial bodies are limited.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 18, 2017, 10:12:38 AM »
But this doesn't explain why the same stars/constellations are visible night after night in Australia and different stars are visible night after night in the UK. They are different constellations Tom. Surely if I look up from any point on Flat earth  I would see the same constellations, from different angles not completely new constellations?

Yes. A constellation over the equator would be seen  in a southward direction from northern latitudes and a northward direction from southern latitudes.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 18, 2017, 09:51:55 AM »
You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: why do stars change on FE
« on: September 18, 2017, 09:44:04 AM »
The stars are in motion above the earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 09:41:00 AM »
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:


...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.

What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:


How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 16, 2017, 07:28:12 PM »
Looking through their PDF on time, they do have some equations listed. They are "geometric." (Trig) The equation below factors in the Earth's "out of roundness" when converting barycentric dynamic time to terrestrial time to an accuracy of 50 microseconds. Barycentric times factor in relativistic effects. (i.e. time dilation) I feel this should put your mind at ease about this not being a "pattern" based application. The application includes 7 different time standards, including geocentric and atomic. Can we get this thread back on track now???

You listed one of the 7 time scales used in the 77 equations. What does that say about the sunrise time equation, the timescale used, and whether the sunrise time equation is geometric or pattern based?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 16, 2017, 06:03:05 PM »
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?

Even if the time of sunrise equation was accurate with what happened in reality (the people who present these types of equations sure don't like to talk about accuracy), we still do not know whether that particular equation, one of 76 others in SOFA, is geometric or pattern based yet. Why do you think that simply looking at the time of sunrise is a valid test? The sun has done the same thing for hundreds of years. Don't you think it is possible to create an equation based on its previous patterns?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 16, 2017, 05:51:26 PM »
Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.

Tom, what should such data look like in your opinion?

Well, one would think that the data should be on the SOFA website somewhere. That should be something to be proud of. But there is not a word about accuracy.
The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.

The OP is assuming that the RE model of the sun is true ans beyond question in his post, but is unable to present data showing this to be the case.

Flat Earth General / Re: If the Earth is Flat what is below it?
« on: September 16, 2017, 05:44:03 PM »
Check out this random video on found on the youtubes, guys. It proves the Earth is flat. Totally legit - look at the proof, irrefutable.

I swear some people don't have a flipping clue. We've been making maps for centuries and they all look more or less the same. They've been used to guide all travel and commerce. The distances DO NOT WORK on a flat map. They can't. That is why the smarter FEers like Tom say there is no current FE map. Better to say you don't know than to admit you're wrong.

No cartography work was ever put into that monopole flat earth map you are referencing. I'm not sure why you are expecting to use it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 16, 2017, 03:48:38 PM »
SOFA is a collection of algorithms. We need to know which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Perhaps the ones that are pattern based are accurate and the ones that are geometric have accuracy issues.

You are continually denying the need for basic evidence for the accuracy of SOFA. You prefer imagining that if there was an issue that you would have heard about it rather than looking for the information yourself. Are you a contributor or astronomer who is using SOFA? How do you know how accurate it is? Are all algorithms 100% accurate or are only certain ones mostly accurate?

It is absurd to think that a wide collection of celestial algorithms are entirely accurate in all implementations, considering on the previous page we saw references that 10 complex algorithms are required to make a prediction based on a geometric model. Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 09:34:40 PM »
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 08:58:56 PM »
Yes, with a few minutes of research to find one example of an article that specifically cites the astronomical constants used by the IAU programmed into SOFA:

and also:

but really just all of these:,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en


But also, for those watching, note that Tom's question was redundant: 3DGeek gave "data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions" in his post, but now that Tom has asked for some, he has opened the possibility of then dismissing without cause any actual data that is provided. This could be described as 'moving the goalposts' or 'willful ignorance.'

I asked for data showing that SOFA is accurate, not random papers like "Constraining the Angular Momentum of the Sun with Planetary Orbital Motions and General Relativity". Where is SOFA tested in any of this?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 08:23:58 PM »
The evidence is in the SOFA source code - which you can freely download from the link provided.   If you read through the 60,000 lines of software code, you will, with 100% certainty find a buttload of equations that relate to the round earth and heliocentric model of the universe.   That's your evidence, go ahead and read it.   See you in a couple of years.

We know SOFA is reliable because it's been's used by the International Astronomical Union - the professional and academic body that oversees all astronomy around the globe.   These are the guys who decided that Pluto should not be called "A planet" - the people who determine the acceptable names for newly found stars and planets.   Every single astronomer in the world relies on them.   If SOFA was inconsistent with RET then the world would be ablaze with the news.  Instead, it's been considered the gold standard for ephemeris calculations for over 20 years.

The evidence is that people can use it reliably for pointing telescopes at stars and planets all over the world and at any time of the works for radio's used all over the place.

If you're expecting to find a giant table of sunrise and sunset times, measured with a stopwatch and compared against the times predicted by SOFA - then you're not going to be in luck.  That's not how the world works.

Instead, look at a photograph of a distant galaxy taken by some ungodly huge telescope on top of a mountain in South America - and note that the telescope is pointing in the right direction to take that photo because it uses SOFA to figure that out.

YOU CAN go look at the SOFA software...and if you think you have the intellectual capability to understand the equations then I STRONGLY urge you to do so.   But it ain't simple.  This is a very comprehensive thing.

Before we get into the intricacies of the SOFA source code to see whether the collection of equations are geometric or pattern based; can you provide data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 03:20:30 PM »
Yeah - in a world where FET was REMOTELY credible (Trust me, it's not) - then scientists would be working very hard to collect data to prove one model or the other.

The truth is that you guys are seen as complete idiots by 99.999% of the world - and nobody would remotely consider collecting data to "prove that the world is round" - we already have photos from the moon, long distance air flight...all of the DOZENS of other things that have proven conclusively that the Earth is round.

If you want people out there with theodalites and stop watches - then you're going to have to do that yourself.

The ACTUAL proof works like this:

1) We assume the null hypothesis: "The World is Round".
2) We use this fact to create software like SOFA and it's ilk.
3) We test it against the real world to make sure it works.
4) It does work.
5) We call it done.

If at step (4) we found even the SLIGHTEST inconsistency - then we have to go back and look at our initial hypothesis.

Here is an actual example of that happening:

1) Sir Isaac Newton came up with the laws of motion and the law of gravitation.
2) It was used to write equations describing the path of the planets across the skies.
3) It was checked against telescopic observations to see if they matched.
4) They did scientists and engineers began to rely on Newtons' laws.


5) Horror of horrors!   Careful observation of the motion of the planet mercury showed that it's orbit "precessed" in ways that Newton's laws could not explain.
6) There was much concern that Newton may have gotten things very slightly wrong - or that astronomers had somehow missed another planet or something.
7) Albert Einstein discovers relativity.
8) New equations of motion are made to improve on Newton's theories.
9) These new equations match not only the motion of all of the other planets - but also show why the Sun's gravity causes subtle bending of space-time which PERFECTLY explains the motion of Mercury.
10) Scientists now use Newton's work only as approximations - and use Einstein's work where it matters.

But nobody is making lots of observations to "prove" Newton or Einstein's results.  That was done a century ago.   Once a scientific fact is well established, we can stop worrying about it unless some weird anomaly appears.

So IF at ANY TIME someone finds that the sun rises an hour too soon - then you can trust me that there will be a bazillion scientists with theodalites and stop-watches collecting data.

But the RE model works PERFECTLY - it explains everything we see around us - there is not one single thing that even hints at it being incorrect - so why the heck would anyone waste time and money measuring sunrises and sunsets?

The fact is that if you want FET to be accepted widely, YOU are the ones who have to collect the data.

Remember - you're not trying to convince your believers - if you want your theory to be more widely accepted, YOU are the ones who have to collect data and find some "smoking gun" flaw in RET's predictions.

Not only can you not do that (evidently) - you can't even come up with a coherent explanation for the tides or sunsets or compasses or airline flight times or how the moon looks in the southern hemisphere or how lunar eclipses work or the phases of the moon or how the stars rotate in the southern hemisphere or what powers the sun or why pinhole cameras don't exhibit your "alternate perspective".

You act as though it is the job of RE'ers to prove you wrong - but in truth, the onus is on you to find even one tiny scrap of evidence that RET is wrong.

Why are you trying to divert this discussion?

If you can't present the evidence showing that those equations are unimpeachable then they are not unimpeachable. Your argument that we should just accept them without question is terrible.

We have simply requested the data behind the work so that we can see it have been verified as accurate and all you can seem to do is throw a fit. Quite telling.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 03:17:05 PM »
We have multiple people in multiple threads confirming they have observed to accurately predict their local sunrise/set times. Fact. Stop it with this red herring of 3DGeeks statement.

The only other observational reports that were presented were some random RE posters who chimed in stating "werks for me!!" in the heat of conversation. It is quite sad that you see this as evidence.

We have presented evidence from the Almanac (that timeanddate states to agree with) that it's equations are confirmed with many years of observational data. You refuse to accept it.

What evidence?

You appear to be looking for a catalogue of a bunch of observations taken to confirm these equations. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but assuming such a thing exists, it's unlikely to be in a digital format. The records would have been taken and kept by the IAU and predecessor associations. Assuming such data is even on the list to be digitized, it's likely a very low priority to do so for their own records, much less for public records.

How can you assume that these catalogs exist if we can't find any trace or reference to them?

We've both presented you tools to show it's not working with known equations, and those equations themselves show that they are based upon the heliocentric globe model.

It has not been shown that the equations are based on a Heliocentric globe model, or that they are accurate. Stop lying.

This you can't pretend, because FE doesn't even have a map for them to be using, much less a working model of the objects in the sky. In the distance thread it was inadmissible for the GPS if it was based on RE coordinates, but suddenly you don't care when the same is used here? Bollocks my good sir. Bollocks.

GPS or Round Earth coordinates have not been discussed here.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 02:34:13 PM »
Why are we even arguing about this?

Let's look at the steps in this debate to see how Tom seeks to derail things:

* We find a problem that FET cannot explain.  Either real world sunrises and sunsets match RET or they don't.
* If they match RET then parts of the FE world will experience wild temperature variations compared to what one would expect.
* If they DON'T match RET - then everyone would know it because software like SOFA and TimeAndDate and HUNDREDS of other sunrise/sunset calculators would all be incorrect...and quite clearly they are not.

This is a slam-dunk...the world is round.

So what can Tom do?   Initially he ignored it - but when I posted my list of debate topics where the FE'ers had abandoned them - Tom clearly saw he needed to "up his game" and following that discussion - he's started to "connect" on some of these threads.

So he comes to this thread and looks for any way he can to derail the argument.   The only place he sees an opportunity is to claim that "real world" sunrise and sunset times MIGHT not match RET.

He has ZERO proof of this - none, zip, nada.

This is insanely unlikely.   Mankind has had the means to calculate these times since the ancient Greeks...and ALL of those methods are RET based.

Tom is therefore claiming that of the bazillions of times people have used sunrise/sunset calculators - nobody ever noticed that they are WILDLY incorrect.   For the argument I propose to be incorrect, the "real world" sunrise/sunset times would have to be many, MANY hours wrong.

It would be like 3am - and the sun would come up...people would be amazed...they'd check any of a dozen sunrise/sunset calculators and they'd say "6am" (or whatever).

How would nobody be aware of this insane and disastrous error over the course of the last 3,000 years or so?

But - does Tom defend this?

No - he goes off on a tangent demanding ridiculous proof for an impossible assertion.   I provide that proof (even though it's not needed) and he focusses on smaller and smaller nits.

These are the actions of a very desperate man folks.

He's holding on to his precious flat earth theory by a finger...and it's slipping away.

We're past the point where we'd say "SUCH-AND-SUCH GOES WRONG" and he comes up with some elaborate theory that explains why - and instead he falls back on the ever-expanding crazy degrees of doubt.

The deal here is that sunrise and sunset times that people see out there in the real world DO agree with RET math...of this there is no realistic doubt - only Tom-induced-craziness-doubt.

So - focus on the thing here:

Can FET explain why the speed of the sun across the distorted maps of the FE world either doesn't change (resulting in FE sunrise/sunset times disagreeing with VERY well established algorithms like SOFA) - or can FET explain why we don't see crazy temperature inconsistencies - or can FET explain how nobody ever noticed the sun rising several hours from when it should according to the math that's been used to calculate them for 3,000 years or more?

That's the issue here - it really doesn't matter whether some specific website uses some specific piece of software.   That's NOT the realms of doubt here.

We have had many threads about this. I ask for the observations of the sun that Round Earth Theory relies upon for its sun models and no reports can be found. The only observational evidence was you claiming to have proved it when you were 13 years old. Why should we believe that there are hidden mountains of professional observations?

Round Earth Theory does not rest upon your 13 year old observations, I am afraid. If you cannot provide the observations which back up a Round Earth mathematical model, then we cannot accept those sources as impeachable evidence.

If you cannot see the importance of having observational evidence to back up an algorithm, then we are done talking here. We have been asking the same question for years.

You have not shown that or SOFA are accurate, or that they rely strictly on a Round Earth geometric model of the solar system for the predictions. You have a steep uphill climb for your positive claims.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 15, 2017, 12:40:14 AM »
That not only does perspective somehow mysteriously make the sun go below the horizon

I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

but this apparently actually means that 'the sunset' is like a band of light or something that moves up from bottom to top on these clouds?

Yes. The same thing is claimed to happen on a Round Earth. A person at the bottom of Mt. Everest sees the sunset before a person at the top of Mt. Everest in the Round Earth model. A band of light travels from bottom to top.

Alright then, let's see it. Show us the orange sunset across the top of clouds while the bottoms are in darkness.

Why should I? Do you disbelieve your own model where there is also a band of light?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 15, 2017, 12:16:07 AM »
I've told you my personal observations match Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.

We are constantly told that there are mountains of data to rely on. You are referencing a thread where I spent many pages posting the same request for the "proven" Round Earth claims about the sun over and over. I believe it was 3D who eventually made a claim along the lines of that he proved something about the sun at the equator himself when he was 13 years old. His quote:

So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.

Sure - I have an observation.   I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager.  Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator.   In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings.  I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road.  She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth.   In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.

This was the only piece of observational evidence presented in the thread, no one being able to present any of the observational evidence which we were told that RET is based upon. For quite a while I kept asking for the professional observations which were claimed to exist and none could be found. 3D had to resort to the old "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" in face of embarrassment, and now you reference 3D's claim here as some kind of shining beacon of achievement.

This is an example of why the arguments presented by your particular generation of REers are so terrible. We have seen better effort.

I never argued it. You asked "Where does the website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?

You challenged me to "take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else." If you are challenging this then I expect that you have some kind of knowledge that the data uses or relies on SOFA. If you really had no idea whether it was related or not then you should have just remained quiet.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« on: September 14, 2017, 09:51:44 PM »
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.

Why are you lying and trying to claim that it is known where got its data then?

IF the data is similar to the Astronomical Almanac data (no examples were given) and IF is accurate for what is seen in reality (again, no one has found any observations to show that this is the case) then it just moves your burden of proof to show that the Astronomical Almanac data is derived from a geometric equation rather than a pattern based equation.

Did I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.

Why are you arguing for something which you do not know the answer for? If you are arguing in favor of SOFA then I expect you to have answers.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: September 14, 2017, 09:47:31 PM »
But in FET it isn''s still physically, 30 degrees up in the sky...according to what you've been telling us about sunsets, it only LOOKS like it's on the horizon because of some "weird" perspective thing...right?

No. Light from objects on the horizon are coming in horizontally. The horizon is at eye level and 90 degrees from zenith, and this is where the light is coming from.

If light travels in straight lines (which I agree it does) then how does the light from the sun come down UNDER the clouds, then back up again to light up the undersides?

It's not coming from the underside of the clouds. The clouds, or potion of the clouds, are simply at a lower altitude where sunset is occurring. The light is coming in from the side from the horizon.

Look carefully at the image from the can CLEARLY see that a particular cloud is grey on top and orange below - and fading gently from one color to the other.

The top of the grey clouds are at a higher altitude than the orange clouds.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 133  Next >