Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2017, 08:01:50 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2017, 09:16:26 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.

If you seek clarification for why waves or seas or lakes matter, read the chapter you were directed to.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2017, 09:21:45 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.

If you seek clarification for why waves or seas or lakes matter, read the chapter you were directed to.
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2017, 09:27:26 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

Quote
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 09:35:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2017, 10:06:32 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

Quote
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
Still we wait for you to provide details of current experiments.  Specific links.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2017, 10:13:01 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

Quote
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?

There is an FET answer for eclipses (the "shadow object") - which although seemingly implausible to me - doesn't appear to violate any reasonable principles of geometry or logic.

The "sinking ship effect" is a bit like the Rowbotham experiments - while under carefully controlled conditions, it can reveal the true nature of the world, it's FAR too easy for ikky refraction issues to derail any simplistic demonstration of it.   So while I do believe that ships sink below the horizon in the right circumstances - there are enough mirage/Fata Morgana type of effects to make that approach to deciding between RET and FET become more trouble than it's worth.

My go-to arguments are relating to sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, and also to moon phases, how the sun lights the world, how the stars appear to move, the orientation of the moon - how gravity varies from place to place - how the coriolis effect comes about - how travel times across the southern hemisphere are entirely implausible in FET.

Those things have yet to be answered to any satisfactory degree - either in the Wiki or in conversations here on the Forums.

I'm also horrified by the size of the conspiracy theory you need to hide all of the dirty little secrets.

So FET is still very seriously lacking.

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2017, 12:03:17 AM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I see..  So you yourself have never observed any of this and are just accepting this information as valid because it supports your position, and are dismissing the 1000s of years of information that exists indicating the earth is a globe?

Also, I can show you several comments that you yourself made in which you dismiss the information somebody presents you under the pretense that they have not observed that information for themselves.

I am honestly convinced you are a willing participant in a fraudulent scam or are suffering from some severe delusions.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2017, 01:06:37 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

Quote
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it. This appears to be the sum total of your debate strategy, just directing us to somewhere else. So let's try something new.

The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

But what I haven't seen is current day experiments that produce the same results as Robowtham linked here. We haven't seen current day proofs of the refutation of the sinking ship effect linked here. We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here. You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote? Astonishing. Remember, early man also believed the Earth was flat because of the evidence of his eyes. He also believed in many other, stranger things because of his eyes, which are an imperfect device.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2017, 05:46:22 PM »
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.

After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.

Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.

The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.

Quote
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.

Quote
But what I haven't seen is current day experiments that produce the same results as Robowtham linked here. We haven't seen current day proofs of the refutation of the sinking ship effect linked here.

Have you not seen the Flat Earth resurgence on youtube? People are making a ton of experiments. There are even laser experiments. Go to youtube and start searching.

Quote
We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.

There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.

Quote
You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?

Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 05:58:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2017, 06:22:56 PM »
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.

After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.

Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.

The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.
You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.

There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.
Great, can you give a link to a good article on the topic from that journal? Shouldn't be hard I should think.

You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?

Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline simba

  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2017, 06:49:24 PM »

Quote
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.


It has been said that the these analysis only predicts when eclipses will happen but not where they can be seen wich can be done today.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2017, 09:39:32 PM »
Tom is just a troll. This is shown by his repeated reference to a single source for information and his refusal to acknowledge any evidence that proves his position wrong.  His source, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, is antiquated, mistake-filled and obsolete, like many medical books from the same era. It does provide evidence of the Earth being flat, but that evidence is flawed, and Tom knows this. He is not a stupid man and he surely recognizes that modern science provides unequivocal proof that the Earth is a nearly perfect rotating sphere. But like most other trolls, he is being disingenuous and thus should be ignored.

*

Offline ErnestV1

  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • After digging into FE WIKI, still a RE believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2017, 11:45:01 PM »
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.

What has been demonstrated in a lab is that plasma of individual gases have unique spectral signatures. Here is a picture of three different gases and their plasma signatures.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=spectrum+of+helium+plasma&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg#id=8&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg&action=click

The sun's spectral signature tells a story of many different gases in a plasma state. Gaseous plasma can be reproduced in a laboratory, in fact we use plasma to create things such as integrated circuits (plasma can lay down materials, or etch them off as needed). We use spectral detectors in these processes in order to determine when the recipe of the plasma has changed its chemical composition. We know a lot about plasma, how to create it and change it and how to detect what is in the gas as it is in this excited state. Therefore, we can observe what gases are excited within the sun by looking at its spectral signature.
I love how the sun shines on the bottom of the clouds and sunrise and sunset!

We may disagree on many things, but I will always try to respect everyone and thereby reflect the love of Christ.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2017, 12:21:52 AM »
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.

Quote
You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.

However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia

Quote
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.

If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 02:01:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2017, 03:15:58 AM »
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.

Quote
You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.

However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia

Quote
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.

If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.

If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?

How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?

Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2017, 06:09:39 AM »
Again Tom refuses to provide actual links.  Interesting that he said in a reply he is at school.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2017, 03:34:22 PM »
If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?

How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?

Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?

Astronomers use a prediction method for celestial events based on pattern recognition of past occurrences in the sky to predict when the next occurrence will occur. This is the way events in astronomy have been predicted for thousands of years, and while different forms of math and different cycle periods have been used at times to make this pattern match prediction, the basic method remains unchanged.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2017, 04:21:51 PM »
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.
And again, I've read the chapter, and do not understand to what you are referring. We're not talking about a small lake, we're talking about a large lake. A term interchangeable with sea. Either give a shot at attempting to explain, or we can both stop worrying about it.

You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.

However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia
Solar and lunar coordinates are then used to assist in predicting the eclipse, and to predict the path of it upon the Earth. As stated on that page.

Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.

If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.
Which I have done so on videos. This isn't the proper place to be criticizing random Youtubers. You brought it that they exist, I simply pointed out the fact that many of them have flaws, and a simple visual experiment over water isn't the most conclusive proof for either scenario. There are far more compelling problems for a flat Earth to overcome, such as moon phases, and making a workable map.

Any chance of a link for what you would consider a good/strong article in the Journal you mentioned? Or elsewhere perhaps? A vague "Look in that direction" isn't helpful.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2017, 10:25:45 PM »
Astronomers use a prediction method for celestial events based on pattern recognition of past occurrences in the sky to predict when the next occurrence will occur. This is the way events in astronomy have been predicted for thousands of years, and while different forms of math and different cycle periods have been used at times to make this pattern match prediction, the basic method remains unchanged.

this is wildly untrue.  the history of eclipse prediction is robust and dynamic.

the earth-moon-sun system is a special case of the 3-body problem called the circular restricted 3-body problem.  basically if m1 >> m2 >> m3, and if m2 and m3 have circular orbits, then the 3-body problem is tractable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
Quote
Hill considered a special case of the CR3BP in which two masses were much smaller than the first one (the problem is now known as the Hill problem), and in this way he discovered a new class of periodic solutions. His main contribution was to present a new approach to solve the Sun-Earth-Moon three-body problem. After almost two hundred years since the original formulation of the problem by Newton [1687], Hill developed his lunar theory, which with some modifications made by Brown [1896], is still being used today in celestial mechanics [Gutzwiller, 1998].

the gutzwiller paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion for the cr3bp developed by hill, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589

once you've determined when an eclipse will occur, local conditions (size of the umbra/penumbra, duration, location on the globe, etc.) are calculated using besselian elements.

saros cycles only tell you when an eclipse you've already seen will recur.  they don't predict any other eclipses.  since the babylonians were never in north america, no babylonian saros cycle will tell you that a total solar eclipse is going to occur in salem, oregon, on august 21, 2017, at ~10:15am and be visible for ~90 seconds.  some nerds with computers figured that out on their own.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 10:45:07 PM by garygreen »
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2017, 11:08:49 PM »
this is wildly untrue.  the history of eclipse prediction is robust and dynamic.

the earth-moon-sun system is a special case of the 3-body problem called the circular restricted 3-body problem.  basically if m1 >> m2 >> m3, and if m2 and m3 have circular orbits, then the 3-body problem is tractable.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
Quote
Hill considered a special case of the CR3BP in which two masses were much smaller than the first one (the problem is now known as the Hill problem), and in this way he discovered a new class of periodic solutions. His main contribution was to present a new approach to solve the Sun-Earth-Moon three-body problem. After almost two hundred years since the original formulation of the problem by Newton [1687], Hill developed his lunar theory, which with some modifications made by Brown [1896], is still being used today in celestial mechanics [Gutzwiller, 1998].

the gutzwiller paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion for the cr3bp developed by hill, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589

This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.

http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf

Quote
The Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (CRTBP) has been examined for over 200 years. The formulation
of the equations of motion for the CRTBP presented here generally follows the work of Szebehely,1
although Szebehely provides far more detail. Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the three-body system. In the
CRTBP, the mass of the third body (i.e., the spacecraft) is assumed to be negligible in comparison to the two
massive bodies
, defined as the primary and the secondary (collectively termed the primaries). It can further
be assumed that the two primaries are subjected to the Keplerian laws that govern two-body motion. In
addition, it is assumed that the two primaries rotate in circular orbits about the center of mass of the system,
known as the barycenter.
It is then possible to model the motion of the spacecraft in a frame of reference
that rotates about the barycenter at the same rotation rate as the two primaries.

Quote from: garygreen
saros cycles only tell you when an eclipse you've already seen will recur.  they don't predict any other eclipses.  since the babylonians were never in north america, no babylonian saros cycle will tell you that a total solar eclipse is going to occur in salem, oregon, on august 21, 2017, at ~10:15am and be visible for ~90 seconds.  some nerds with computers figured that out on their own.

The Saros Cycle has been updates since the time of the Babylonians to include data from world wide observation of the eclipses. This is described on NASA's Eclipse Website. No solving of the three body problem was necessary, since the Saros Cycle is purely a pattern based method based on past observations.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 11:19:45 PM by Tom Bishop »