Macarios

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2019, 04:58:12 AM »
There is no single proof for either.

The difference is that Flat has to make different model for each set of
observations and measurements, and Globe can present all in the single one.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2019, 08:18:27 AM »
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2019, 09:45:24 AM »
It is not necessarily a matter of being unified Tom.  Science likes to make things a simple as possible and so many aspects of FET are explained much more simply and clearly (logically you might say) by RET.   In my opinion of course.   

For example take the FE explanation of lunar eclipses. To make a lunar eclipse possible in FE you need to create a non-existent (and apparently never seen) 'shadow object' where as in RET , that object is actually the Moon itself.  Just presenting an example that's all.

Macarios

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2019, 03:02:26 PM »
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.

Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?
Geostationary orbit?
South celestial pole?
Midnight sun in Antarctica?
Aurora Australis?
Seismic waves?
Map of the world?
Hurricanes and Cyclones?
Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Apparent horizon dip?
...
Shall I continue?

Here, on this forum, there was one simple question asked several times by several people and still not answered:

How high is Sun in Flat model?

Globe model has the value consistent.

Flat model has this:
Quote
We know that Sun travels 15 degrees per hour, measured from observer from any place, any time of a day.
If one doesn't believe that, they can go wherever they want and check it out.
Every place on Earth has clear days when Sun is visible to everyone.

Distance from North Pole to Tropic of Cancer is measured to be 7389 km.
It gives the circumference of 46 426 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on summer solstice.
It is 1934 km/h.
967 km in 30 min.

Distance from North Pole to Equator is 10 000km.
(At the beginning Meter was defined as 10 millionth part of the distance from North Pole through Paris to Equator.)
It gives the circumference of 62 832 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on Equinoxes.
It is 2618 km/h.
1309 km in 30 min.

Distance from North Pole to Tropic of Capricorn is measured to be 12 611 km.
It gives the circumference of 79 237 km, which Sun travels in 24 hours on winter solstice.
It is 3302 km/h.
1651 km in 30 min.

For Summer Solstice:
standing at Tropic of Cancer at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 967 / tan(7.5) = 7345 km.

For Equinox:
standing at Equator at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 1309 / tan(7.5) = 9943 km.

For Winter Solstice:
standing at Tropic of Capricorn at noon you have Sun above your head, and 30 min later Sun is 7.5 degrees to the west.
It gives Sun's altitude of 1651 / tan(7.5) = 12541 km.

What is the real altitude of Sun?
Why is south almost equally hot in December as north is in June, if Sun there is almost twice higher at the corresponding time?

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2019, 03:34:23 PM »
Name something you think is unified in RET and I'll show you where there are multiple contradicting models or why it is not really based on RET.
Just because you get different explanations, that doesn't mean the theory isn't unified. People may not all understand it, but that doesn't mean the explanation isn't consistent amongst people who actually do understand it.
The eclipse shadow thread is a good example. There is admittedly some confusion in that thread but that's because the actual answer is complicated and somewhat counter-intuitive. But as I've managed to finally explain there is an answer which works perfectly well in RE, given that the eclipse path can now be calculated down to the city block (not something you could do with just "patterns"), there is clearly a consistent theory or how eclipses work and a map which works.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2019, 03:40:05 PM »
Quote
Name something you think is unified in FET

Conversely, name me one aspect of FET that all FE'ers are agreed on.  There seems to be so many different models. Moreover, please point out any aspect of FET which provides a more simple and logical account for a real world observation than RET does.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2019, 04:33:23 PM »
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes. Multiple interpretations depending on method.

Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the Venus method.

Copernicus' method computes the distance to the Sun as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler's method gives 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Stars

Theories about stellar distances continually change, and are based on slight color variations. RE cosmology is a mess without coherent unified theories and multiple contradicting and non-working models

>>Aurora Australis?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002154155.htm

Quote
An aurora borealis (aurora australis in the Southern Hemisphere) is precipitated by explosions on the surface of the sun, sometimes starting as solar flares.

..."We are nearing the solar maximum, which is when the sun is at its most active," he said. Solar maximums come around every 11 years, but no one knows why.

"No one knows why"

>>Seismic waves?

Multiple models, based on assumption:

"Many seismic wave models are based on an erroneous assumption about the Earth's interior. A new technique corrects this by eliminating false signals produced by models."

"Here Bezada et al. assessed just how much this assumption leads to disparities between predictions and observations."

>>Map of the world?

The mapping systems are based on small flat maps. Not a "globe".

>>Hurricanes and Cyclones?

Coriolis Effect not needed for the Tropical Cyclones. Most wind and water systems are turning the wrong way.

>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?

Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

Article: "Why is the southern hemisphere hotter than northern hemisphere?"

>>Apparent horizon dip?

The horizon dip is much different than the RE predicts.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 04:58:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2019, 05:03:40 PM »
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes.
No it doesn't.
Obviously over time our calculations of it have changed as science has become more mature and tools to measure it have become more advanced. That is literally how science works. Ideas are tested and revised as methods and ideas become mature.
It's like saying "you guys can't make up your mind, first you thought the earth was at the centre of the universe, then you said the sun is, then you said the sun is going round the centre of the galaxy..."
Yes. That is how science works. As we learn more our ideas develop. But for over 2000 years now we've known we live on a sphere and that hasn't changed once.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2019, 05:15:46 PM »
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes.
No it doesn't.
Obviously over time our calculations of it have changed as science has become more mature and tools to measure it have become more advanced. That is literally how science works. Ideas are tested and revised as methods and ideas become mature.
It's like saying "you guys can't make up your mind, first you thought the earth was at the centre of the universe, then you said the sun is, then you said the sun is going round the centre of the galaxy..."
Yes. That is how science works. As we learn more our ideas develop. But for over 2000 years now we've known we live on a sphere and that hasn't changed once.

Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2019, 05:25:15 PM »
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.

So if I have two objects, and three people measure distance between them - one uses a laser measure, and gets 92.75 cm, another uses a single tape measure calibrated in millimetres, so gets 92.80 cm, and another holds a rigid metre stick to them to arrive at 92.70 cm.

So what if they're slightly different? They are consistent within reasonable bounds of error.

Do you take this inconsistency as proof of anything?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2019, 05:27:41 PM »
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.

So if I have two objects, and three people measure distance between them - one uses a laser measure, and gets 92.75 cm, another uses a single tape measure calibrated in millimetres, so gets 92.80 cm, and another holds a rigid metre stick to them to arrive at 92.70 cm.

So what if they're slightly different? They are consistent within reasonable bounds of error.

Do you take this inconsistency as proof of anything?

It's not the same method that has been incrementally improved over time with better technology. The Venus method for the sun's distance gives a much different value to the Half Moon method. Astronomers have tried many different methods, with contradicting results.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 05:29:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2019, 05:29:00 PM »
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.
Yes. Aristarchus lived over 2000 years ago.
As science develops methods get refined, some methods are shown to be flawed and more accurate measurements are made.
Are there any scientists arguing about the distance to the sun now?
You lot are but, with respect, you aren't scientists.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2019, 05:31:17 PM »
Aristarchus used a different method and came up with something entirely different. Different methods produce different results. Not self-consistent.
Yes. Aristarchus lived over 2000 years ago.

We still use geometry and triangulation methods from 2000 years ago. They knew how to measure angles. The efforts of determining the distance to the sun was ongoing for thousands of years and was of prime importance. No one "improved" on those methods, to create a self-consistent model showing a consistent distance with multiple methods. One method says this, another says that. Your accusation that no one knew how to measure angles is farcical and wrong.

Those examples are given as failures of astronomers to come up with a coherent model. Try a different method to determine the Sun's distance and you will get a different result.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 05:40:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2019, 05:54:18 PM »
You guys took Tom’s bait and switch. This is about how The Bishop “Experiment” is a piece of trash. Stay on that and not his silly cherry picking of sources.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2019, 05:55:05 PM »
You guys took Tom’s bait and switch. This is about how The Bishop “Experiment” is a piece of trash. Stay on that and not his silly cherry picking of sources.

If you don't believe the results of these experiments, you do it. Have you done the water convexity experiment? What result did you get?

Show that your observations match precisely RET and nothing else. Your reference is Bobby's observations which saw sunken results, as Rowbotham states would happen and predicts when performing it over the open ocean. But those results did not see a RE, and changed every day an observation was made. He often saw things which should not be seen, and the amount hidden changed constantly, showing that the matter is an illusion, and not your cherished curvature. Other threads have continuously shown that the sinking effect changes wildly and only rarely gets close to a RE prediction.

Your proof involves data which contradicts itself. The sinking ship effect is not evidence for a globe at all.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 06:07:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2019, 06:39:39 PM »
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2019, 06:45:09 PM »
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5672
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2019, 07:16:58 PM »
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.

So then... you’ve never made a Foucault pendulum, stop trying to discredit those. You’ve never done any tests of relativity, stop trying to discredit those. Is that how this works?

Evidence of fact is presented to you all the time in the form of video footage from the ISS. This is why you have to assert that space travel doesn’t exist. Remember?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6521
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2019, 07:34:56 PM »
Why are you making this about me? I don’t have to have done an experiment to notice how shabby the Bishop “Experiment” is. Use your head, Tom.

If have not done the experiment then you are in no position to tell us which experiments are right and truthful and correct and which experiments are wrong. You came to us with zero data except for your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence of fact.

So then... you’ve never made a Foucault pendulum, stop trying to discredit those. You’ve never done any tests of relativity, stop trying to discredit those. Is that how this works?

Evidence of fact is presented to you all the time in the form of video footage from the ISS. This is why you have to assert that space travel doesn’t exist. Remember?

If you are referring to the Wiki articles on those subjects, none of the Wiki calls those experiments lies or shabby whatever you are doing here, based on opinion. Sources are given from the public and scientific criticisms of the pendulum experiment. Various investigators and scientists are calling it into question becaus of their contradictory experience.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

None of the Wiki gives an opinion, and is merely a collection of sources The opinions are from third parties. The possibility of Mach's Principle is even described at the end, which is contradictory to the sources which say that the experiment is unreliable.

Feel free to start your own website and collect your own data, to show that the FP is overwhelmingly reliable and accurate. Again, you come to us with opinion in the face of numerous sources for a position.

Macarios

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2019, 07:37:19 PM »
>>Distances to Sun, Moon, planets, stars...?

Sun

Distance to the Sun continually changes. Multiple interpretations depending on method.

Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the Venus method.

Copernicus' method computes the distance to the Sun as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler's method gives 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.

Distance to the Sun changes because of the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit, no more, no less.
The value varies between 147.1 and 152.1 million kilometers (149.6 million kilometers ± 1.67%).

It can be measured any time and the results are consistent wherever in the world you are while measuring it.

Stars

Theories about stellar distances continually change, and are based on slight color variations. RE cosmology is a mess without coherent unified theories and multiple contradicting and non-working models

There are farther stars whose distances were adjusted by certain percentage with more precise measurements,
but the distance to Alpha Centauri is consistently 4.3 ly, to Sirius 8.66 ly, to Epsilon Eridani 10.45 ly and so on...

Show me any consistent method to measure / calculate distance to, say, Polaris from anywhere in the world.
You can imagine Flat model and calculate what results you can get from different places, then do the same imagining Globe model.
Take, for instance, measurements from 20, from 40 and from 60 degrees north and see how big differences you get in which model.

>>Aurora Australis?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002154155.htm

Quote
An aurora borealis (aurora australis in the Southern Hemisphere) is precipitated by explosions on the surface of the sun, sometimes starting as solar flares.

..."We are nearing the solar maximum, which is when the sun is at its most active," he said. Solar maximums come around every 11 years, but no one knows why.

"No one knows why"

It is obvious from what YOU typed that "nobody knows why Solar Maximums come" not why Aurora Australis occurs.
Aurora Australis and Aurora Borealis are caused by the same thing: ionized particles from the Sun get caught into Earth's magnetic field and excite the air around poles where they shower.
That part is well known.

>>Seismic waves?

Multiple models, based on assumption:

"Many seismic wave models are based on an erroneous assumption about the Earth's interior. A new technique corrects this by eliminating false signals produced by models."

"Here Bezada et al. assessed just how much this assumption leads to disparities between predictions and observations."

General principles are still the same, this is good example of non-dogmatic approach: corrections in the light of the new data.
If the Flat model were more useful seismologists would use it regardless of the shape of the Earth. They just want the job done.

>>Map of the world?

The mapping systems are based on small flat maps. Not a "globe".

Small flat maps are based on general measurements that show bigger picture, it is well known and is used to locate more precise details.
You don't have paper big enough to put more fine resolution details on the same sheet together.


>>Hurricanes and Cyclones?

Coriolis Effect not needed for the Tropical Cyclones. Most wind and water systems are turning the wrong way.

I don't see how that piece of Wiki explains why northern swirls never cross to the south or southern never cros to the north.

>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?

Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

Article: "Why is the southern hemisphere hotter than northern hemisphere?"

Actually:
Quote
The NH is warmer than the SH by 1.25 °C in the annual mean.
(from: http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf, Page 5.)

Northern hemisphere:
- 60.7% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 39.3% land surface (easier to warm up)
Southern hemisphere:
- 80.9% water surface (harder to warm up)
- 19.1% land surface (easier to warm up)

Plus, percentage of CO2 (greenhouse gas) in Northern hemisphere is higher.
Plus, in Flat Earth model the whole southern 'hemisphere' is 3 times bigger, while receiving "the same" amount of heat.
Plus thermal conductivity between surface and hot magma core, but Flat model denies core, so we will ignore it.

And yet, Southern hemisphere is, in total balance, cooler by mere 1.25 Celsius (2.25 Fahrenheit).

>>Apparent horizon dip?

The horizon dip is much different than the RE predicts.

Globe model "predicts":
- theoretical value that doesn't account for any refraction
- theoretical value that accounts for "standard" (most commonly expected) refraction
- practical value that can be measured, therefore exists

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flat model claims that "horizon always raise to the eye level" which means there is none.

Practical measures (including the one that you pointed out) show that THERE IS horizon dip.

Thanks for your patience.

P.S.: So, how high (and how fast) is the Sun in Flat model and how can it be measured? Anyone figured it out in the last 2500 years?