The Bishop Challenge

I suggested earlier you might want to try modeling all this in 3D before accusing entire fields of science as being pseudoscience.  Of course I know you won’t bother, so I found someone else who has made handy little tool already:

The University of Nebraska beat you to it some years ago.  It's the most accurate flat earth simulation I've ever seen, as long as you assume a very tiny flat earth, of course.
https://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion3/animations/sunmotions.html

The discussion appears to have gone off at a tangent somewhat in my absence! If I can remind everyone that flat earth believers appear to believe the moon is much smaller and nearer than is generally believed. To date no methodology nor calculations to support this position has been forthcoming. As this is a pretty fundamental cornerstone of FE belief and a basic point of Cosmology, it would be interesting to know what their belief is actually based on. While the originator of the challenge, Mr Bishop, appears to be unable to provide these answers possibly one of the FE astronomers eluded to by Mr. Davis could help out.

To speed this process up I did a search looking for these FE astronomers mentioned by Mr. Davis but was unfortunately unable to contact any, they appearing to keep a very low profile with no internet presence. I also did a search looking for FE astronomy publications; books or articles and also drew a blank. All this activity brought me back to the starting question, where do FE believers get their information on cosmology from?

Just while we wait to hear from those elusive FE astronomers here is an interesting paper produced as a result of an experiment carried out by a bunch of regular South American  joe public astronomers back in 2014. No mention was made regarding the participation of any FE astronomers. It was part of the Aristarchus Campaign”, a citizen astronomy project aimed to reproduce observations and measurements made by astronomers of the past.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00346.pdf

One of the great features about scientific publications is their precision and attention to detail. This paper provides both. It lays out its methodology and provides clear calculations which support their findings and ultimate conclusions. Their whole aim of doing this is also interesting:

The final goal of the campaign is that amateurs and astronomy enthusiasts in developing countries recognize that by using simple instruments, including readily available electronic gadgets, they can contribute to measure collaboratively the local Universe. Training the communities of amateur astronomers in the developing world for participating in advanced observational campaigns could be very beneficial for the advancement of Astronomy in general.

Their final answer of a moon distance of  388,000 km which tends to agree with all the other methods used does however conflict with the figures presented by The FE community. The speed of light figure obtained by this experiment is also interesting of 320,180 km/s being just 7% away from the accepted value.
It would be interesting to see a similar paper from a flat earth perspective. I’m assuming for people to believe in a small near moon some work of this sort has been produced.

I also did a search looking for FE astronomy publications; books or articles and also drew a blank.

I just searched . . . "Flat Earth astronomy publications; books or articles".

It did not draw a blank:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNT9J0zgkVTHe_czfot1NszEAA3NiQ%3A1576831699606&ei=04r8Xa3LJLS40PEPjtmWiAM&q=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&oq=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&gs_l=psy-ab.12...9260.14831..17487...0.2..0.901.2692.0j1j5j5-1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.fQddTwwOPJ0&ved=0ahUKEwjtgM3q68PmAhU0HDQIHY6sBTEQ4dUDCAo

Quote from: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 12:04:31 AM

I also did a search looking for FE astronomy publications; books or articles and also drew a blank.

I just searched . . . "Flat Earth astronomy publications; books or articles".

It did not draw a blank:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNT9J0zgkVTHe_czfot1NszEAA3NiQ%3A1576831699606&ei=04r8Xa3LJLS40PEPjtmWiAM&q=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&oq=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&gs_l=psy-ab.12...9260.14831..17487...0.2..0.901.2692.0j1j5j5-1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.fQddTwwOPJ0&ved=0ahUKEwjtgM3q68PmAhU0HDQIHY6sBTEQ4dUDCAo

You have read your amazing find ? They don't seem to refer to any flat Earth astronomers.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 12:04:31 AM

I also did a search looking for FE astronomy publications; books or articles and also drew a blank.

I just searched . . . "Flat Earth astronomy publications; books or articles".

It did not draw a blank:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNT9J0zgkVTHe_czfot1NszEAA3NiQ%3A1576831699606&ei=04r8Xa3LJLS40PEPjtmWiAM&q=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&oq=Flat+Earth+astronomy+publications%3B+books+or+articles&gs_l=psy-ab.12...9260.14831..17487...0.2..0.901.2692.0j1j5j5-1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.fQddTwwOPJ0&ved=0ahUKEwjtgM3q68PmAhU0HDQIHY6sBTEQ4dUDCAo

Did you actually read any of those links?

Lets look at the first one on YOUR list;
https://ghostbookwriters.co.uk/our-services/book-publishing?Keyword=%2Bbook%20%2Bpublication&matchtype=b&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI763DuY3E5gIVRrDtCh3CrARIEAAYASAAEgLNSfD_BwE

Ghost book writers...very astronomical!

How about YOUR second one:
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth

A tounge in cheek article about the Flat Earth Movement!.....again no Astronomy in sight.

I ignored YOUR third link it being one for wikipedia....

Any better luck with YOUR fourth link?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aac053/meta

A paper debunking Flat Earth belief!
Abstract
In this paper we present a critical analysis of some of the arguments of flat Earth theory, and we also try to show that this analysis and refutation of these false claims can be a useful exercise in critical thinking that is so much needed today. This article can also make it easier for teachers who are exposed to some of the arguments of flat Earth theory by their students. Some arguments of this theory are completely senseless, and some can simply be disproved by trigonometry or basic physical laws.

And so it goes on, Not one contains a recent article, book or publication from a Flat Earth Astronomer.  Can you explain what your motivation was in providing your initial link as it proved my point that there is no recent Flat Earth Astronomical publicaions that have been produced by a Flat Earth Astronomer anywhere on the internet.

It appears that not even the resident Flat Earth Experts can find any recent publications by Flat Earth Astronomers, via a web search, as eluded to by a Mr. Davis earlier on in this discussion. I'm beginning to believe in the absence of evidence that there is no such thing as a Flat Earth Astronomer. As with the distance and size of the moon, it is incumbent on the Flat Earth experts on this debate forum to provide evidence to back up their own beliefs. Constantly rejecting commonly accepted scientific beliefs just because they conflict with Flat Earth thinking is really not good enough. In a proper debate, we need to examine both sides of the argument with equal scrutiny, to date, the Flat Earth experts who have so far contributed have produced nothing of any substance for any scrutiny to take place. To date, its been a pretty one-sided debate in so far as the production of credible evidence is concerned.

http://andrewmarsh.com/apps/staging/sunpath3d.html

Who cares what FE theorists think about that link, I think it is brilliant and an excellent teaching tool for astronomy. It is accurate, realistic and even has the analemma which is a good photographic project for anyone with minimal equipment.

Quote

http://andrewmarsh.com/apps/staging/sunpath3d.html

Who cares what FE theorists think about that link, I think it is brilliant and an excellent teaching tool for astronomy. It is accurate, realistic and even has the analemma which is a good photographic project for anyone with minimal equipment.

http://andrewmarsh.com/apps/staging/sunpath3d.html

That's a great link by the way, though on a more practical level the Photographers Ephemeris is one I use all the time.

https://app.photoephemeris.com/?ll=55.924444,-3.189604&dt=20191220123600%2B0000

It's rather crazy to think that here is a web resource that is 100% accurate and FE believers have no way of refuting it and no FE explanation of how it works.
I wonder if any FE photographers decline to use it as its based on the earth, the moon and the sun behaving  according to commonly accepted scientific principles. I wonder if there is a flat earth equivalent devised by those elusive flat earth astronomers?

How many times do you all need to be told to stop spamming?

Possibly it’s time for a recap.
There are five ways that I know off that single private individuals or groups can use to measure the distance to the moon:
Parallax
Using a lunar eclipse
Radio bounce
Meridian crossing
Occultations
Institutions with appropriate tech can also use:
Radar
Lasers

There is a huge amount of detailed information on-line explaining how each of the above methods work as well as many examples if you so require it. The interesting thing is regardless of the method used the answer will always be in the same ballpark bearing in mind some methods will have greater room for error. From a scientific standpoint that is pretty significant as different methods used on the same problem all yielding more or less the same answer point to that answer being correct.
It’s also worth noting that measuring the distance to the moon has a long history of over 2000 years.
It was stated by John Davis that a flat earth Zetetic council, members unknown, calculated the distance to be much much smaller, exact method used and actual answer obtained are unknown, perhaps he can share this information. This is very weak evidence to say the least and it strikes me that on the balance of probability given the wealth of available data that the accepted distance of 384,400 km is correct.  As Mr. Bishop has been unable to provide any details of the FE method used or exact calculated value obtained leads me to conclude that he has lost this challenge.

What is notable also is that despite to the FE claim that the Moon is only 32 miles in diameter there are several craters on the Moon which have diameters of around double that. Go figure!

Flat earth and globe earth differ on the highest altitude they each believe humans have attained.

But, what is the highest altitude flat earthers will accept, a human has attained.

That is the first starting point.

The second starting point is our nearest celestial neighbour, or at least our largest, being the moon or sun.

It is one thing to believe something.  It is something else providing evidence to support that belief.  It also depends on exactly what you are willing to accept as proof of something.

I can follow the ISS through my telescope for example and see the solar panels and other sections of the space station as it passes over and that is evidence enough for me and all those who I know that humans have attained an altitude of 250 miles or 400km.

A FEer will no doubt dispute that because according to their belief system that is no possible and therefore I must have seen something else.  Fair enough, that's their interpretation and they are welcome to it!

Given that there are several flat earth scientists on this forum, one even described as prolific, I find it odd that not one has stepped forward to present their findings as regards the distance to and size of the moon. All flat earth references I have come across  refer to the moon being small and near. How have they established this? In this challenge to Tom Bishop he was unable to provide an answer, but surely there must be at least one flat earth scientist who can?

This is an amazing  website that gives precise values for how far the moon is away plus other bits of very detailed information.
https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi?&Moonviewer

Quite agree with you. I know many people who use it (myself included) to plan for and obtain excellent images of the ISS (plus numerous other satellites) transiting the Moon or the Sun.

Quite agree with you. I know many people who use it (myself included) to plan for and obtain excellent images of the ISS (plus numerous other satellites) transiting the Moon or the Sun.

The question is of course how accurate is that website. The other question is does the flat earth brigade have an alternative website that makes predictions for events that are in line with flat earth thinking? Perhaps one of the many flat earth scientists who frequent this forum can answer that one.

Quote from: Shifter on December 15, 2019, 03:01:13 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on December 15, 2019, 02:57:47 PM

If this 'bending of light' thing which electromagnetic acceleration is true, then it seems to me like I should be able to see around corners.  Or is it just a particular form of acceleration that means it only happens at certain distance scales.  Such as the distance of the Moon for example?  If so that is incredibly convenient don't you think.

Heard of a prism?

Light changes direction once when entering a prism. Bendy light requires a constant change of direction. Completely different.

So, multiple and varying levels of moisture points in the atmolayer would be exactly that...so....not different.

Quote

Hell there's even blue moons!

Nice try.. and of course if there's one thing FE'ers have tuned to a fine art it is twisting words to suit their views. But even you will know that a 'blue moon' doesn't refer to the actual color of the Moon but is the name given to the 2nd full Moon in any given month!

Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.

Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.

It goes well with orange slices and ranting about flat earth.

Given that there are several flat earth scientists on this forum, one even described as prolific, I find it odd that not one has stepped forward to present their findings as regards the distance to and size of the moon. All flat earth references I have come across  refer to the moon being small and near. How have they established this? In this challenge to Tom Bishop he was unable to provide an answer, but surely there must be at least one flat earth scientist who can?

Well, all you need do is go to a location near a tall object, say twenty to thirty feet tall. Thing is, knowledge of exactly how tall that object is needed.

Next, position yourself so the top of that abject barely obscures the moon and mark the time of observation.

Next, measure the baseline distance between you and the object.

Then, find out where the position of the moon was at the time of observation.

Voila, you are able to measure the altitude of the moon.

Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.

Yes, and they are due to dust particles in the atmosphere, not refraction.

The Rarest Blue Moon

A Moon that actually looks blue, however, is a very rare sight. The Moon, full or any other phase, can appear blue when the atmosphere is filled with dust or smoke particles of a certain size: slightly wider than 900 nm. The particles scatter the red light, making the Moon appear blue. This is known as Mie scattering and can happen for instance after a dust storm, a forest fire, or a volcanic eruption.

Eruptions like the ones on Mt. Krakatoa in Indonesia (1883), El Chichon in Mexico (1983), on Mt. St. Helens in the US (1980), and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (1991) are all known to have made the moon look blue. Some people even suggest the term once in a Blue Moon is based on these rare occasions, rather than the Full Moon definitions above.

Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 05:27:46 AM

Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.

Yes, and they are due to dust particles in the atmosphere, not refraction.

Quote from: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/blue-moon.html

The Rarest Blue Moon

A Moon that actually looks blue, however, is a very rare sight. The Moon, full or any other phase, can appear blue when the atmosphere is filled with dust or smoke particles of a certain size: slightly wider than 900 nm. The particles scatter the red light, making the Moon appear blue. This is known as Mie scattering and can happen for instance after a dust storm, a forest fire, or a volcanic eruption.

Eruptions like the ones on Mt. Krakatoa in Indonesia (1883), El Chichon in Mexico (1983), on Mt. St. Helens in the US (1980), and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (1991) are all known to have made the moon look blue. Some people even suggest the term once in a Blue Moon is based on these rare occasions, rather than the Full Moon definitions above.

You are stating dust particles do not refract light?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 01, 2020, 02:10:09 AM

Given that there are several flat earth scientists on this forum, one even described as prolific, I find it odd that not one has stepped forward to present their findings as regards the distance to and size of the moon. All flat earth references I have come across  refer to the moon being small and near. How have they established this? In this challenge to Tom Bishop he was unable to provide an answer, but surely there must be at least one flat earth scientist who can?

Well, all you need do is go to a location near a tall object, say twenty to thirty feet tall. Thing is, knowledge of exactly how tall that object is needed.

Next, position yourself so the top of that abject barely obscures the moon and mark the time of observation.

Next, measure the baseline distance between you and the object.

Then, find out where the position of the moon was at the time of observation.

Voila, you are able to measure the altitude of the moon.

You were told this already and probaly why you failed grade 8 math.

Voila
You measured the angle.

Possibly it’s time for a recap.
There are five ways that I know off that single private individuals or groups can use to measure the distance to the moon:
Parallax
Using a lunar eclipse
Radio bounce
Meridian crossing
Occultations
Institutions with appropriate tech can also use:
Radar
Lasers

There is a huge amount of detailed information on-line explaining how each of the above methods work as well as many examples if you so require it. The interesting thing is regardless of the method used the answer will always be in the same ballpark bearing in mind some methods will have greater room for error. From a scientific standpoint that is pretty significant as different methods used on the same problem all yielding more or less the same answer point to that answer being correct.
It’s also worth noting that measuring the distance to the moon has a long history of over 2000 years.
It was stated by John Davis that a flat earth Zetetic council, members unknown, calculated the distance to be much much smaller, exact method used and actual answer obtained are unknown, perhaps he can share this information. This is very weak evidence to say the least and it strikes me that on the balance of probability given the wealth of available data that the accepted distance of 384,400 km is correct.  As Mr. Bishop has been unable to provide any details of the FE method used or exact calculated value obtained leads me to conclude that he has lost this challenge.

None of these methods have been verified independently and shown to accurately show said distance is correct. The calculations can be done by any school child, and have been done again and again over the past at least 3,000 years. Review Earth: Not A Globe.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 01, 2020, 02:10:09 AM

Given that there are several flat earth scientists on this forum, one even described as prolific, I find it odd that not one has stepped forward to present their findings as regards the distance to and size of the moon. All flat earth references I have come across  refer to the moon being small and near. How have they established this? In this challenge to Tom Bishop he was unable to provide an answer, but surely there must be at least one flat earth scientist who can?

Well, all you need do is go to a location near a tall object, say twenty to thirty feet tall. Thing is, knowledge of exactly how tall that object is needed.

Next, position yourself so the top of that abject barely obscures the moon and mark the time of observation.

Next, measure the baseline distance between you and the object.

Then, find out where the position of the moon was at the time of observation.

Voila, you are able to measure the altitude of the moon.

How do you "find out where the position of the moon was at the time of observation"?

Quote from: markjo on January 06, 2020, 06:48:19 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 05:27:46 AM

Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.

Yes, and they are due to dust particles in the atmosphere, not refraction.

Quote from: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/blue-moon.html

The Rarest Blue Moon

A Moon that actually looks blue, however, is a very rare sight. The Moon, full or any other phase, can appear blue when the atmosphere is filled with dust or smoke particles of a certain size: slightly wider than 900 nm. The particles scatter the red light, making the Moon appear blue. This is known as Mie scattering and can happen for instance after a dust storm, a forest fire, or a volcanic eruption.

Eruptions like the ones on Mt. Krakatoa in Indonesia (1883), El Chichon in Mexico (1983), on Mt. St. Helens in the US (1980), and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (1991) are all known to have made the moon look blue. Some people even suggest the term once in a Blue Moon is based on these rare occasions, rather than the Full Moon definitions above.

You are stating dust particles do not refract light?

I'm stating that there is a difference between diffraction and refraction that you may not be aware of.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Reflection,-Refraction,-and-Diffraction

Quote from: Timeisup on December 21, 2019, 06:06:35 AM

Possibly it’s time for a recap.
There are five ways that I know off that single private individuals or groups can use to measure the distance to the moon:
Parallax
Using a lunar eclipse
Radio bounce
Meridian crossing
Occultations
Institutions with appropriate tech can also use:
Radar
Lasers

There is a huge amount of detailed information on-line explaining how each of the above methods work as well as many examples if you so require it. The interesting thing is regardless of the method used the answer will always be in the same ballpark bearing in mind some methods will have greater room for error. From a scientific standpoint that is pretty significant as different methods used on the same problem all yielding more or less the same answer point to that answer being correct.
It’s also worth noting that measuring the distance to the moon has a long history of over 2000 years.
It was stated by John Davis that a flat earth Zetetic council, members unknown, calculated the distance to be much much smaller, exact method used and actual answer obtained are unknown, perhaps he can share this information. This is very weak evidence to say the least and it strikes me that on the balance of probability given the wealth of available data that the accepted distance of 384,400 km is correct.  As Mr. Bishop has been unable to provide any details of the FE method used or exact calculated value obtained leads me to conclude that he has lost this challenge.

None of these methods have been verified independently and shown to accurately show said distance is correct. The calculations can be done by any school child, and have been done again and again over the past at least 3,000 years. Review Earth: Not A Globe.

There is no doubt about the current methods of measurement. maybe you could describe a better one here, not referring to past documents.

Quote from: John Davis on January 06, 2020, 10:23:38 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 21, 2019, 06:06:35 AM

Possibly it’s time for a recap.
There are five ways that I know off that single private individuals or groups can use to measure the distance to the moon:
Parallax
Using a lunar eclipse
Radio bounce
Meridian crossing
Occultations
Institutions with appropriate tech can also use:
Radar
Lasers

There is a huge amount of detailed information on-line explaining how each of the above methods work as well as many examples if you so require it. The interesting thing is regardless of the method used the answer will always be in the same ballpark bearing in mind some methods will have greater room for error. From a scientific standpoint that is pretty significant as different methods used on the same problem all yielding more or less the same answer point to that answer being correct.
It’s also worth noting that measuring the distance to the moon has a long history of over 2000 years.
It was stated by John Davis that a flat earth Zetetic council, members unknown, calculated the distance to be much much smaller, exact method used and actual answer obtained are unknown, perhaps he can share this information. This is very weak evidence to say the least and it strikes me that on the balance of probability given the wealth of available data that the accepted distance of 384,400 km is correct.  As Mr. Bishop has been unable to provide any details of the FE method used or exact calculated value obtained leads me to conclude that he has lost this challenge.

None of these methods have been verified independently and shown to accurately show said distance is correct. The calculations can be done by any school child, and have been done again and again over the past at least 3,000 years. Review Earth: Not A Globe.

There is no doubt about the current methods of measurement. maybe you could describe a better one here, not referring to past documents.

A better way would be to use tape measure. Not one of these methods directly measures distance. That is how laughable these claims are. You have not shown that any of these methods actually measure distance and do so accurately. No one has. The astronomer has as much as an idea of distance to the heavenly bodies as a mortician who has never seen a cadaver has expertise in his profession.