Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2019, 07:59:47 PM »
>>Thermal distribution north and south of Equator?
Common misunderstanding. It's not equal. The SH is hotter.

How come SH can be hotter in FE, if the land area the Sun must cover during its same 24h is much wider than the NH, where the radiation concentration  per km² would be higher?

Total FE area = r²xPI = 20000²xPI = 1256636000 km²
NH area = r²xPI = 10000²xPI = 314159000 km²
SH area = TotalArea - NHArea = 1256636000 - 314159000 = 942477000 km²

Total FE Area = 1.256 E+9
NH Area  = 3.141 E+8
SH Area  = 9.424 E+9

FE SH area is in fact 30 times larger than NH
How come SH can become hotter than NH, or even the same?

For FE SH temperature to be the same as FE NH, the FE Sun would need to be 30 times hotter in January.   If you are referring to perihelion, when Earth is closer to the Sun in January, it is not very significative, as a matter of fact, the atmosphere temperature is opposed, it even helps FE with 4°C...  ;)  when global temperature is even lower in January.  So, the FE solar temperature is not logical, not true to the real thing.



For the ones that didn't get it yet, if you pass your hand very close over a candle flame it may burn, or not, it only depends on how fast your hand moves.  In the FE January, the Sun needs to cover 30 times more km² per second than it covers the Northern Hemisphere in July, so it moves faster, radiating less energy per km² to the land on January than on July when it moves slower.  Even needing to cover 30 times more land, the land temperature is almost the same on both hemispheres.

Lets calculate:
FE say on July the Sun is circling Earth every (lets round to) 24 hours, right over the Tropic of Cancer, at 23°26' North.
FE say on January the Sun is circling Earth during the same period of time, over the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23°26' South.

Considering FE disc to have 180° from North Pole to Ice Wall:
Tropic of Cancer is at 23°.26' (23.4333°) North from Equator, means 66.566° from North Pole.
Tropic of Capricorn is at 23.4333° South of Equator, means 113.433° from North Pole.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Cancer on July will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 66.566/180, 20000 km x 66.566 / 180 = 7396km
Tropic of Cancer circumference = 7396 x 2 x 3.14159 = 46471 km.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Capricorn on January will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 113.433 /180, 20000 km x 113.433 / 180 = 12603km
Tropic of Capricorn circumference = 12603 x 2 x 3.14159 = 79191 km

Now;
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Cancer is 46471 km / 24h = 1936.3 km/h
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Capricorn is 79191 km / 24h = 3299.6 km/h

The speed difference is 3299.6 / 1936.3 = 1.7x
(I will not even question what makes the Sun accelerate or break speed and change circling diameter)

Means, the FE Sun runs 1.7x faster over the Tropic of Capricorn than over the Tropic of Cancer.
It simply means that the Northern Hemisphere solar speed would spread 70% more radiation per second than to Southern Hemisphere.
This is not true in the real world, the NH is NOT 70% hotter than SH.
Also, the above calculations should take in consideration just radiation per second, not radiation per squared area of land.

On the top of this post, I considered squared area land, and came to 30x less radiation per km² in the South than in the North.
What it is again, not true in the real world. 

The actually measured solar radiation energy in average, between tropics to be 1kW/m². Based on the 70% difference of solar radiation per km² on FE, if measured 1kW/m² in Rio de Janeiro (what is real), then a person living on Central Florida would receive 1.7kW/m², that is not true, it will be cooking everything on land.

Other important thing, consider the sun speeding 1.7 faster on the Tropic of Capricorn, it means people on the Southern Hemisphere would notice the Sun moving 70% faster on January sky, shadows on ground moving 70% faster, etc.  This is also not true.

Based on FE perspective, vanish point and "can not see far due atmosphere not being transparent", the Sun would disappear from southern sky on January 70% faster than on July on North.   If on the North we can see the Sun during 12 hours on July, then on the South we will see the Sun only for 3.6 hours on January, what is also not true.

There is a lot of "Not True" on the text above.
Thanks for bringing this subject to my attention.
This is one more item FE must address and explain on Wiki, will be very difficult if not impossible.

Below a comprehensive FE map about tropics circumferences and Sun's speed over them


Below a FE horizontal view in two situations, Figure1 and Figure 2 are proportional to FE diameter, Sun's altitude, tropics diameter.

Figure 1 is the Sun circling over Tropic of Cancer (July), smaller diameter. 
Figure2 is the Sun circling Tropic of Capricorn (January), larger diameter.   
Both observers, living under such tropic can see the Sun raise from the horizon and set at the horizon.

Based on FE mechanics, the Sun at 4800km of altitude never really gets to touch the horizon, but FE explains the observer actually see the Sun setting and disappearing below the horizon due perspective, vanishing point and atmosphere not being transparent, and also possible use of atmospheric refraction, not allowing to see far. 

Based on this FE statements the Figure1 allows to understand the observer can only see the Sun on sky within an angle of only 113°, below that it will be under the horizon. But Figure2 with the Sun at the same altitude, the angle is much larger, 139° for the same effect to take place.  The only possible FE explanation is that on the southern hemisphere you can see farther, perspective and vanishing point works differently, and the atmosphere is more transparent, with less refraction.

The other complication is about the visible time of the Sun during the day.  Both observers can see the sun more than, but lets assume only 12 hours on both tropics, Cancer on July, Capricorn on January.  Now lets divide the angular view of the sun in the sky during 12 hours.   For the observer of Tropic of Cancer, the Sun travels 113/12 = 9.41° per hour in average, but we know that is not true, so it must be 9.41°/h from 10am to 2pm  and fantastically speed up at raise and set to reach the apparent position close to horizon.   For the observer on the Tropic of Capricorn, will be 139/12 = 11.6°/h, with also non linear angular speed during the day.

Interesting fact that on RE we can actually measure a very linear and steady solar angular speed of 15°/h all the way from raise to set, and the solar visibility on both tropics are the same, not different visibility angles (both are 180°), not different atmospheric visibility.

I wonder if FE could produce and post explanations on Wiki, using at least images better than mines, with scientific facts, numbers, angles.

Just to clarify, the observers on Figure1 and 2 are not on the North Pole, they are somewhere over its tropic circle.   The three suns over the observer represent the sun at 6am, noon and 6pm.



Also, we can actually predict on RE, exactly when the Sun will raise and set, within seconds, due its extreme easy mechanics of a round Earth and heliocentric system. 

The FE explanations about the sunrise and sunset rely on atmospheric conditions of visibility and refraction.  All of this can change by temperature, moisture, cold/warm wind and climatic conditions that can change at any time, would dramatically change the position of the FE sun on the horizon, not being possible to predict with precision when it would happens.

I also would like to hear from FE how those sunrise and sunset can be precisely predicted under so much optical challenging situations. 
This whole post is completely relative to Tom's statement that SH is hotter, I proved mathematically above FE SH is 30x cooler per km², not hotter.

I sincerely expect someday for some FEr to answer those questions, since I feel I am writing to a brick wall.   

 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 08:05:03 PM by spherical »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2019, 08:06:52 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.
Tom, you call NASA experiments and missions fake or incorrect but since you have yet to do these things yourself I guess you're in no position to claim they're faked or that their data is incorrect. You have zero data of your own in regards to being out in space except your own opinion. No one cares about your opinion. You should prove your model correct with evidence or fact.

This is called double standards.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2019, 08:38:04 PM »
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?

Your proof involves data which contradicts itself. The sinking ship effect is not evidence for a globe at all.

What experiments have you actually done, Tom, apart from "The Tom Bishop Experiment"?

What did you do, when did you do them, what were the results, and where are your results recorded?
==============================
==============================
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 stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2019, 08:48:08 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.

Back to Rama’s point. “The Bishop Experiment” is not an experiment, it’s anecdotal at best. It's basically a modernized retelling of the introductory fable in SBR’s ENAG Experiment II:

"The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described.”

The similarities are quite striking:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.”

SBR: when lying on the ice, with a good telescope...
TB: With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach...

SBR: observed persons skating and sliding...
TB: see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing…

If I were to retell the story from my perspective would it be worthy of calling it “The Stack Experiment” or would it just be considered some opinion piece with zero substantiation or evidence?

“Even on a very clear and chilly day it is not possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it was not possible to see what I imagined were people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. From a much closer vantage point one could assume the entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I couldn’t see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I couldn't see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I couldn't see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach wasn't visible, just the blue of the bay waters as earth’s curve was in my way.”
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2019, 03:40:34 PM »
I need to admit, there are several similarities on both texts, the use of same words and figurative expressions.   I also question about being flat on the ground on stomach, with a good telescope of 500x magnification? Telescope body was touching the ground?  I would not dare for the world to approximate my "good" optics from beach salty sand spray, even over a towel.  People don't do that even with photo cameras.  Tiny salty sand particles in suspension will stick to the lens, it needs special washing solution afterwards to remove it without scratching the lens coating, irreparable damage.  Of course, an astonishing finding like that is like front facing a hovering alien spaceship, when you knew it was there, took a telescope to see the aliens better, but simply forgot photo camera to take some evidencial pictures.   If I would experience such features, I would become millionaire for taking only 10 good focused sharp pictures, each with a different eyepiece to prove the sequential objective lens optical resolution, camera date/time on pictures and a GPS compass to prove my position.  Anyone would admit, a picture from domestic telescope showing kids playing with frisbee across a 48km patch of water would worth a fantastic reputation and at least good money.  Not even talking about the water spray, waves, evaporation, moisture in the air.  Of course, a picture is better than a million words. 

I recalculate here, to get into the optical resolution and visibly discriminate a very tiny person from a light pole 48km away, you need to "bring" that person close to 200m at naked eye, this means a minimum magnification of 240x, using a smaller possible eyepiece of 9mm it will require an objective with focal distance of 2160mm, being refractor telescope, it will have a body length of more than 90 inches (2.3m), with a minimum aperture of 150mm (6"), 1 arcsecond resolution, focal ratio f/14, that would be a really heavy and bulky tube.  The best powerful refractor Celestron produced recently was the Advanced VX6", just the tube is 8.3kg (19 lbs), computerized, $1500+, even so the objective focal distance (1200mm) is too short for this endeavor, it will need a 5mm eyepiece, trust me, you didn't have that.  I know dozens of astronomers with green expensive optical equipment, only few have an eyepiece like that, last weekend my neighbor Barney bought a 4.7mm TeleVue Ethos SX, cost more than $600.  This eyepiece with low focal point are only used in deep space observation, something that I guess Tom is not really interested.  The most common eyepieces delivered along with regular telescopes are 24, 25 or 40mm, even with the VX6 it means an image magnification of 50, 48 and 30x.  The 24mm would bring the kids playing frisbee to 960m (2880ft or 6/10 of a mile) at naked eye, think about it, can you discriminate a frisbee at 6/10 of a mile away? that is around 9 city blocks away.  Really, a picture taken directly at the ocular would be fantastic.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8604
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2019, 04:21:44 AM »
Quote
I'm sure they have. Just-above-the-water shots are notoriously unreliable.

And you proceed to link us to just-above-the-water shots. The fact that the effect is inconsistent and often shows that the earth is flat disproves Aristotile's proof that the earth must be a globe because of the sinking ship effect. A two-thousand year old proof is debunked. Inconsistent observations are not proof for a globe.

The sinking ship effect is explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Time-lapses will show the truth of the matter, of which is the real version and which version refraction is causing.
Please provide your proposals for measuring the shape and size of the earth.

FYI, this post was reported by an RET proponent for being off-topic. I tend to agree. You are already on two bans and have had a warning in the last week, so let's take a month off this time.

You seem to have the record for most warnings in FES history without being perma banned.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2019, 01:49:41 PM »
That Celestron scope you mention (Advanced VX6) looks like a bog standard 6" f8 achromat. The Advanced VX is part refers to the mount. I had a 6" f8 TMB triplet apo until recently.  A scope I bought used for £5,500. One of the best I have ever used I have to say.

There is of course no single 'one for all' telescope on the market.  Longer focal length catadioptrics (SCTs/Maks) tend to be more favoured for planets where as short focal length Newts are favoured for deep sky.  Fast 60/100mm apos when used in conjunction with DSLRs offer good performance on wide field imaging.

I completely concur with your comments re the Ethos eyepiece. I have two myself - the 21mm and the 13mm.  Never heard of an Ethos SX mind.  Maybe it is a one addition to the Ethos range.

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2019, 05:54:29 PM »
We still use geometry and triangulation methods from 2000 years ago. They knew how to measure angles.
Did they have these tools to help them?

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-most-precise-and-accurate-method-for-measurement-of-angle

Obviously they knew how to measure angles to a certain accuracy but they didn't have the tools we have now to do so with the accuracy we can now.
This is a good article which goes through some of the different ways the distance to the sun was calculated over history

https://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-earth-from-the-sun.html

And it's not that different methods gave different answers because the whole model is flawed. It's that all the methods had potential for error, over time those methods improved and we got closer to the true distance.

If the earth is flat and it's as close as you suppose then by triangulation. You should be able to calculate it accurately for yourself. All you need is a few people known distances apart and take some observations. Have you done this? Has anyone? I've asked this a few times on here and never had a straight answer.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2019, 06:20:43 PM »
You are talking about something that occurred 12 years ago. I no longer live in that area, nor do I have the telescope. It was a refracting Celestron that was advertising itself as 500x equivalent...

A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

Not that it makes a difference. It's just testimonial.  Not "experimental evidence."

Now, the QE2019 and Flat Reality Earth Explorers documented a successful signal mirror sun reflection from about 5 ft above the Salton Sea across a distance of 17.5 miles. Documented with video from an IR-modified P900. Pretty impressive. But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline. 

I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy. I've given up on it, and I find the continued inclusion of it in the Wiki to be simply an homage to the Society's most intrepid globe critic.

(Yes, I still lurk sometimes.)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2019, 07:03:53 PM »
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

It might have been an Orion. I've had both. What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?

I thought you said that we could easily see the ocean cut into the land if we just scan across the bay? It shouldn't matter if it is too muddy at the time of viewing. At 3 feet the opposite bay 23 miles away should be hidden by about 290 feet. At 10 feet per story, that's a 29 story building. There are no skyscrapers in Santa Cruz.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 08:05:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2019, 07:25:16 PM »
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?
If it's the video I'm thinking about then I saw some analysis which showed those cars were on a flyover, not on a road on the ground.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2019, 08:00:37 PM »
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
A Celestron model? In an old thread from a time closer to the original testimony you told folks asking this same question about what equipment you used that it was an Orion StarBlast 4.5".

It might have been an Orion. I've had both. What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
But other than the glint of mirror flash, absolutely no detail of the far shoreline.

You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?

Quote from: Bobby Shafto
I was passing by Monterey a few weeks ago, hoping to attempt the "Bishop Experiment" with my Meade Infinity 90 refractory (2.6mm eyepiece), but too hazy.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?

I thought you said that we could easily see the ocean cut into the land if we just scan across the bay? It shouldn't matter if it is too muddy at the time of viewing. At 3 feet the opposite bay 23 miles away should be hidden by about 290 feet. At 10 feet per story, that's a 29 story building. There are no skyscrapers in Santa Cruz.

This from you regarding a recent discussion around radio/radar wave propagation distance and the atmosphere. Seems relevant here:

If you admit that there is no physical evidence for the matter then it is merely a story. No evidence. None.

No evidence = Trash science

Go back to school and learn that science requires experimental verification for hypothesis. It is called the Scientific Method.

"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence. None. "No evidence = Trash science," in your own words. Why it's referenced in the wiki under the heading "Experimental Evidence" is beyond me. It really should be removed from the wiki.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2019, 08:08:00 PM »
Quote
"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence.

Actually, claims and accounts are evidence.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2019, 08:23:11 PM »
Claims absolutely do not count as evidence. Evidence is what you need to support a claim. Accounts are evidence as long as they are verifiable and not pleasant anecdotes. You know, like the Bishop “Experiment”.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2019, 08:25:14 PM »
What brand of coffee maker did you have 12 years ago?
If I'd have used it in citing "evidence" for some extraordinary claim, I'd sure as heck remember.


You mean except for the cars which were commented on as moving in the background?
Those vehicles weren't on the beach. The highway is higher.

Did you see Santa Cruz at all?
No.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2019, 08:25:22 PM »
Quote
"The Bishop Experiment" is just a story, a fable. No evidence.

Actually, claims and accounts are evidence.

Not according to you. Must be physical evidence, not claims or accounts:

If you admit that there is no physical evidence for the matter then it is merely a story. No evidence. None.

The Bishop Experiment admittedly has no physical evidence therefore it is merely a story. No evidence. None. Ergo, No evidence = Trash science. Your words, not mine.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2019, 09:15:44 PM »
Wrong again. Claims and accounts are evidence. No one is throwing away the experiments Newton used to derive F=MA because he didn't have YouTube videos.

If you want some YouTube reproduction of the flat earth water convexity experiments, they are right here:

Quote
Kind of a bad experiment then.  Poorly conceived.  Unrecorded and unrepeatable.

Plenty have performed the water convexity experiments with a Flat Earth result.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm - Earth Not a Globe - Many experiments, repeated by Lady Blount and others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGTsCZGHJQ -- "Why I'm a Flat Earther" - 37 experiments, many of which are water convexity tests. Experiments and observations discussed range from 6 miles to over a hundred miles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA -- Pier2Pier - Dr. John D - 9.5 mi test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rWES5dJu4 -- Flat Earth Experiment 4 Mile Test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCRej0BoA4 -- 7.5 Mile Flat Earth Test On Frozen Lake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xACaIIUKtzE -- "Globe is Iced"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE -- 9.5-mile Test Flat Earth Perth Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0 -- Salton Sea Level Observation No curvature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MmqXUeHxg -- "Flat Earther proves no curvature at Salton Sea. Leaves Scientists baffled" -- Conducted in association with the Independent Investigations Group

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8TsCPMCR_s&t=36s - Monterey Bay 13.3 miles

Ranty Flat Earth conducts numerous water convexity tests  on various lakes, and ocean inlets such as the Irish Sea. Ranty often sees windows and details on buildings from a distance of 18.5+ miles away, at an elevation of 4 feet, and he is using a P1000 camera, which is inferior in light collection to larger high quality telescopes. Ranty even brings his camera down to 2 inches above the water line.

Quote
Perhaps you will be a little more diligent like Bobby Shafto was, and produce some verifiable and repeatable results instead of the wiki "experiment" which wouldn't pass muster for a freshman science student.

The Flat Earth results of the water convexity experiment have been reproduced by others. If you don't believe it, you do the experiment.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 09:25:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2019, 09:31:14 PM »
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6403
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2019, 09:36:15 PM »
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

Because if you don't believe that Newton did an experiment then that assertion is easily countered with reference to others who also claimed to see similar things.

Quote
As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

No one said that they were controlled. We can often see further than we should, which is contrary to the 2000 year old sinking ship proof that we live on a ball.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 09:41:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5505
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2019, 09:47:38 PM »
Why do you keep referring to other experiments when we are talking about the Bishop “Experiment”.

Because if you don't believe that Newton did an experiment then that assertion is easily countered with reference to others who also claimed to see similar things.

Fortunately we have a mountain of experiments done in controlled circumstances and the results pour in every time a grade 9 student takes a science class.

Quote
As a side note, how many of those YouTube videos represent work done in a laboratory under controlled conditions? If they aren’t then they do not meet your standard for an experiment. If you allow them, then you will have to start allowing astronomical evidence.

No one said that they were controlled. We can often see further than we should, which is contrary to the 2000 year old sinking ship proof that we live on a ball.
[/quote]

Not controlled and not in a laboratory, good. Do we ignore them or allow them? If we allow them, then you have negated your own objection against astronomy.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.