The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 04:06:18 AM

Title: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 04:06:18 AM
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 04:09:38 AM
For some background information, this link describes what equipment one would require and the method used to carry out a moon bounce experiment.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 05:36:48 AM
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 14, 2019, 05:42:23 AM
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?

I got the feeling you were going to rip me a new one Tom? Can you confirm or deny?

I think it was either me or Rab that triggered you.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 06:13:27 AM
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.

In leiu of his refusal, I guess we can do this.

Can the OP rephrase his question more closely to what was asked and explain how RE explains the distances or properties of  the celestial bodies better, rather than asking me to prove something about the FE celestial bodies 'according to the scientific method'?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 09:10:58 AM
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.

In leiu of his refusal, I guess we can do this.

Can the OP rephrase his question more closely to what was asked and explain how RE explains the distances or properties of  the celestial bodies better, rather than asking me to prove something about the FE celestial bodies 'according to the scientific method'?
I think the opening question is pretty clear, but just for you ill repeat it:

I accept the challenge as issued by Tom Bishop on all things Cosmological, and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles  from the Earth (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
There are a host of other experiments that can be carried out to prove the speed of radio waves if required, though the point of this debate is for TOM Bishop to prove his assertion that the moon is 3000 miles from the earth with a radius of 32 miles and as a consequence, the speed of radio waves is not that of light.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.

I'll also provide this link again that is aimed as High School children so therefore assume will in range of your understanding. Please note it gives not only the equipment required but the method used should you wish to replicate it. Again I wait with interest to learn which methods you used to determine the distance you appear to believe in.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

One should remember that this experiment was carried out by hundreds if not thousands of radio hams back in 2009, all yielding the same result of around 390,000 KM and not 3000 miles/ 4828Km.
https://www.wired.com/2009/06/moonbounce/


Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 09:35:19 AM
Was I issuing a challenge to you, or was I talking to someone else?

Changed topic.  You lose.

To use Tom Bishop's own words regarding 'ripping a new one' its looking to me like he has a new one coming.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 09:38:49 AM
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us a EME Moon Bounce Station:



He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. The process involves sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 09:52:12 AM
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us a EME Moon Bounce Station (http://). He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. It's conducted by sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.

Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 09:57:28 AM
Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 10:05:56 AM
Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".

Secondly, moon bounce using radio equipment DOES NOT require any internet connection. Moon bounce was first carried out in 1946 long before the internet. Rather than trying to deflect this discussion please provide your own moon distance figures. Please be reminded of the parameter you yourself set.

The physics for moon bounce is simple in the extreme. A radio signal is aimed at the moon, it bounces off the moon and is picked up by the receiver and the time noted, the speed of the radio waves being known, therefore the distance is a simple calculation.......Over to You Mr. Bishop please provide your own method by which you calculated the distance you assert to be correct

Please read this explanation, it is aimed at high school students so I assume you will be able to follow it rather than scour the internet for material to deflect. As you yourself stated this debate should be kept on piste. It is about the distance to the moon. I have stated what I believe in with experimental proof. Please state your counter before picking holes in the method I put forward.
https://www.scienceinschool.org/content/moon-and-back-reflecting-radio-signal-calculate-distance

Just watch the second video that I posted. He clearly states in the first couple of minutes that he is communicating with a facility in Germany,  and that "he heard me", etc. and at 4:54 "you need a pretty big station at the other end."

What is he talking about?

Quote
Firstly rather than derail this question by evasion. Please provide how YOU came by your believed distance.

I made no such claim about any distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy, and it appears that so far your answer is "we asked the government".
You are evading the question once again. NO Internet connection is required if your transmitter has enough power. It was carried out for the first time in 1946 long before the internet. It's done on a regular basis all the time by Radio hams! Why do you continue to avoid providing your own data by indulging in this constant smoke screening?
Its only fair, I have provided you with a means of calculating the distance to the moon and you so far have provided ZIP.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 10:13:06 AM
It's looking like Tom Bishop is quite happy to break his own rules where it suits him. As yet he has provided no information to support his own beliefs being quite happy instead to indulge in avoidance by picking irrelevant holes in the fairly straight forward procedure of bouncing radio waves off the moon.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 10:21:28 AM
The question here is a pretty simple one. We all use radio, it is a pretty mature technology. It has been known for many years that radio waves propagate at the speed of light. OR does Tom Bishop contest this, if so by what experimental data?
We know that radio waves bounce off objects, the basic principle of Radar. Or Does Tom Bishop contest this also?
IF a powerful enough transmitter is directed at the Moon some of the radio waves will be reflected where they can be picked by a receiver. The time taken for the journey is measured and a distance simply calculated using V=d/t.

What I want to know, what part of this does Tom Bishop disagree with and what would be his counter experiment, not for him to fault find with my proposals. that can come later once he has provided his methodology.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 10:22:39 AM
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.

(https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/propagation-eme-moonbounce-basic-concept-01.svg)

There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on December 14, 2019, 10:54:13 AM
When using helicoidal antenna you get circular polarization.
If you send clockwise polarised wave, after reflection it becomes counte-clockwise.
To receive it, you need helicoidal antenna with coil in the opposite direction.
That's why you need system of more than one antenna for your trasceiver.

In the case of communication with another station, you never know which polarization has the other side.
For the reason of polarization reversal at bounce, that other station will also have both way windings.
It is not rare to have system of four antennas, two for transmitter, two for receiver.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 11:59:00 AM
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.

(https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/propagation-eme-moonbounce-basic-concept-01.svg)

There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.
Yet more evasion. When are you going to layout your own methodology for public scrutiny? This is supposed to be a two-sided debate. I have laid bare my proposal that anyone with the right equipment can verify or not!
but as yet you have kept your own a secret, why is that? Do you have no confidence in your own beliefs or would you rather continue to nitpick at mine? How about some honesty for once. Though I agree with your post that the distances are indeed very large and it does require some care in undertaking such an experiment....but where is your FE experiment?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 14, 2019, 12:19:32 PM
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Quote
Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.

(https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/propagation-eme-moonbounce-basic-concept-01.svg)

There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one.

It's interesting you quote a source that not only confirms commonly accepted belief regarding the moon but also refers to a host of other things that you refuse to believe.
But with that said let's abide by your own stated rules and not be deflected from the main issue at hand which is the distance from the earth to the moon. I have stated that I agree with the distance determined by the radio moonbounce experiment as it agrees with other methods, the distance being around 384,400 Km. Your own Wiki states 3000 miles or 4828 KM, which you appear not to agree with either. It's a bit difficult to have a debate if you neither sate your belief or how you arrived at it! It strikes me you have something to hide and to cover up you nitpick at the concepts I have presented.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 14, 2019, 01:58:42 PM
On the topic of the Moon Bounce there are two points:

1.) A licensed Ham radio operator shows that the signal in the EME Moon Bounce shouldn't be possible at all according to the propagation calculators.



2.) The narrator of the above video mentions that the Moon Bounce is suspicious, since an internet connection is apparently required. This is verified by the following link, showing us a EME Moon Bounce Station:



He is communicating with a third party installation, and says at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moon Bounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it.
Incorrect!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's conducted by sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results.
Incorrect and totally unfounded!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.
Sure but radio amateurs have been doing it for many decades!

Why do you insist on making such erroneous claims with no evidence?

Numerous radio amateurs use moon-bounce for Earth Moon Earth communication with other HAMS in distant locations and precise delay times are now easy to measure.

Here is one of many examples of such EME communication between a radio HAM at Mawson Base in Antarctica:
Quote
Moon bounce in Antarctica, 6th June 2013 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2013/moon-bounce-in-antarctica)
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

Proving the feat was no accident, two nights later he performed another ‘moon bounce’ to communicate with radio operators in Sweden and New Zealand.

‘The “Holy Grail” for many serious amateur radio operators is bouncing a radio signal off the moon and reflecting it back to Earth to have a conversation with another station on the other side of the world,’ Craig says.

‘The technical challenges are immense, but with modern high-speed computers and sophisticated software, it has become a lot easier in recent years.’

Craig, who is wintering at Mawson station as a Senior Communications Technical Officer, says his first moon bounce on May 4 this year, was the first time it had been achieved from an Australian Antarctic station and only the third time from the Antarctic continent.

Until recently, the technique was only possible using the largest, most powerful and expensive amateur radio stations.
This is because of the distance the signal has to travel, the amount of power needed to send a strong signal and
the loss of signal as it travels through space.

‘The moon has to be lined up perfectly between the two stations to achieve an adequate reflection,
so we use computer programs to find the optimum time to communicate,’ Craig explains.

‘However, most of the transmitted signal is lost into free space and only about seven per cent of the signal
that strikes the moon is reflected; the rest is absorbed.

‘The Earth’s atmosphere distorts and attenuates the signal even further so that by the time the signal reaches
 the receiving station it is very weak.’

As Craig is operating from a small, ‘home-made’ station, he can only communicate with receiving stations that use multiple,
‘high gain’ antennas and vast amounts of power.
       (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0016/112615/varieties/antarctic-sml.jpg)
Mawson Senior Communications Technical Officer, Craig Hayhow, at his radio.
(Photo: Keldyn Francis)
(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0017/112616/varieties/antarctic.jpg)
Click to Enlarge (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0017/112616/varieties/antarctic.jpg)   
(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0020/112619/varieties/antarctic.jpg)
Click to Enlarge (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0020/112619/varieties/antarctic.jpg)
Craig built his own radio station using an off-the-shelf antenna that is small enough not to get blown away in a blizzard, but large enough to generate a signal that can reach the moon. He also built an amplifier to boost his transmitting signal from 4 watts to 500 watts.

To bounce a signal off the moon he uses customised software to target it.
Objects other than the moon can also be used and Craig has targeted commercial aircraft and meteor trails.

‘The software is tailored for each application,’ he says.

‘It takes around 2.7 seconds for a signal to be bounced off the moon, while it is virtually instantaneous from an aircraft. If a signal comes back, you can be sure it’s reflected off the object you are targeting.’

Quote from: Tom Bishop
So this "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is.
No! Why would anyone ever "ask the government how far away the Moon is"?
Around 200 BC Hipparchus measured the distance to the moon. He claimed that the distance to the moon was between 62 and 73 Earth radii.
Today we know the average distance is about 60 radii.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
For what reason this service was made open to the public, who knows. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.
Where is your evidence that any such "service was made open to the public". No evidence means that you are making up stories!

But there are almost unlimited references to radio HAMS using EME for long distance DXing, here are a few:
electronics notes: How to Use Amateur Radio Moonbounce, EME Propagation. (https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php)

VE2ZAZ - First EME (Moonbounce) Radio Contact with HB9Q - Higher Quality Vidéo

OK2KKW: The first Amateur Lunar tests & contacts |1st part: 1953-1965 (http://www.ok2kkw.com/eme1960/eme1960eng.htm)

Amateur Radio – PEØSAT: Information about Amateur Radio – Satellite experiments (https://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/eme/)
Moonbounce on a Budget by Bob DeVarney W1ICW Winter 2013 (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)
Beginner’s Guide to Small-station EME by Paul Bock, K4MSG (https://www.qsl.net/sterling/Activities/20151007_Paul_K4MSG_Small_Station_EME/EME%20Presentation_07-2015-h+.pdf)

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 04:00:26 PM
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

The amateur radio operator is working with a facility in England to propagate the signals. Lets do a search on EME Moon Bounce Cornwall England.

The Cornwall facility mentioned is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish operated by the ESA:

http://www.arrl.org/news/goonhilly-32-meter-dish-to-be-active-on-moonbounce-on-september-1-2

Quote
Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

“Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 14, 2019, 04:08:00 PM
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.
And why does that make it fake?

But I posted that because the source was from the Australian Antarctic base at Mawson.

I was looking for reports of amateur lunar echoes. I had plenty of amateurs receiving Apollo signals from the moon.
As early as 1927 there had been reports of "spurious" long-delayed echoes (LDEs) as in Long delayed echo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_delayed_echo)

But then I relocated this report:
Quote
The first Amateur Lunar tests & contacts |1st part: 1953-1965 (http://www.ok2kkw.com/eme1960/eme1960eng.htm)
<< " The first official EME test in 1946 - Project Diana", "The first official European EME test in 1946 - Hungary and "The military use of EME propagation during 50's - 60's" omitted >>

Lunar DX on 144 Mc! [1953]
W4AO and W3GKP Bounce 2-Meter Signals Off the Moon

Listening to the wire recording from which the above graph was made, it doesn’t sound like much; a one-second beep, an interval of receiver noise, then a wavering trailing bee-e-e-e-p barely discernible in the midst of the slightly musical rushing sound that is characteristic of high-selectivity reception. You wouldn’t be impressed if you happened to hear it casually, but to Ross Bateman, W4AO, and Bill Smith, W3GKP, it was music of the sweetest sort; evidence that more years of thinking, figuring, building, re building and testing were not in vain. An amateur signal had been sent to the moon and back, at last!

Bouncing signals off the moon is not new, of course. It was done on 110 Mc. by the Signal Corps back in 19461 and something approximating intelligence was sent from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Washington, D. C., on 400 Mc. more recently, using the moon as a reflector. These were high-power projects, however, and their slim margin of success indicated that lunar DX for amateurs was a long-chance proposition. It was an end that just might be achieved, but only after the most painstaking effort, if at all.

The best available information indicated that it would take the level amateur power limit, pushed to the last watt. An antenna gain of at least 20 dB was required, and a degree of receiver performance to tax the ingenuity of the best engineers in the business was called for. Obviously, a 144 Mc. WAS, lunar style, was a long way off, but it was a challenge that a few enter prising and infinitely patient hams were bound to accept.

One such ham was Bill Smith, W3GKP, then of Silver Spring, Maryland. Smitty knew what he was about, and he went at the job with no illusions about aiming his beam at the rising moon some night and then sitting back to listen to the W6s. He knew the requirements, in a general way, and he felt sure that the trick could be turned, eventually. The first step was to find a co-worker, so that the burden of equipment development and construction could be shared. A ham with a kilowatt rig and a big beam for 144 Mc. would be a fine start. Several prospects were lined up, and early in 1950 a few transmitting tests were made, while W3GKP worked on his receiving gear, but none of the prospects had sufficiently good equipment to make reception possible at that stage of the game.

Other amateurs, among them W4AO, Falls Church, Va., had been working along similar lines. Learning of W3GKP’s interest, Ross joined forces with Smitty, and Project Moonbeam was on its way in earnest. Ross brought to the operation the technical know-how and the enthusiasm and perseverance Smitty had been looking for, and he had a 2-meter rig capable of a full and efficient kilowatt, a 32-element array, a low-noise receiver and a quiet suburban location. After many evenings of discussion, planning and construction, the stage was set for a series of tests with a set-up that appeared to have some chance of succeeding.

 The required separation in frequency between the transmitter and receiver frequencies (to take care of Doppler effects resulting from movements of the earth and moon) had been calculated, and the receiver frequency set with elaborate stability precautions. A wire recorder was connected to the receiver output, to catch as permanent evidence any sign of a returned signal. The system was put in operation whenever the moon was in the right place, and no minor considerations like eating or sleeping were allowed to interfere.

At long last, at 5:03 A.M. on July 15, 1950, came something that sounded like an echo. It was faint and indefinite, but it started at the right time and it sounded like the real thing. What was more important, it was caught on the wire recorder. It was just one tiny beep after a long series of transmitter pulses, but it was enough to keep enthusiasm going.

<< Unsuccessful attempts descriptions omitted for brevity. >>

Tests the following afternoon produced nothing, but beginning at 1533 EST on the 27th, a whole series of echoes was recorded at W4AO, two cycles of which are reproduced at the start of this article. Success, at last, and in sufficient quantity and quality to provide irrefutable evidence!

The equipment used in this and earlier stages of Moonbeam will be described by W4AO and W3GKP in a subsequent issue of QST. Now the question is, “Where do we go from here?” As Smitty puts it, “This is the end of Phase A - we’ve got an echo. Phase B will be to transmit intelligence to another station. Phase C will be to work somebody, two-way. Phase D will be to break the 2-meter record. Phases E, F - well, can go on almost indefinitely. After three years we’re just getting started!”

-E. P. T.

        (http://www.ok2kkw.com/next/qst_53.png)
Our cover shows W4AO, left, and W3GKP checking the alignment
of the 20 wavelength stacked rhombics used for Project Moonbeam.

Most radio amateurs are quite uninterested in measuring the distance to the moon - that has been known quite accrately for centuries.
What the want is contact with other amateurs over the largest distances that they can manage - DXing.
So they concentrate on point-to-point EME links. There is a lot on that in the rest of the above article.

But, whether you accept it or not a radio, radar of laser signal takes about 2.56 secs to cover the round-trip. That has been verified numerous times.

Now I would like an explanation, without unsupported hypotheses, how you explan that for a moon claimed to be only about 3000 miles above the Earth as stated in:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

<< Extra material added about the first amateur lunar echo. >>
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
The reference you posted says that he had to perform it with a facility in Cornwall in England.

Quote
Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce a radio signal 742 000 km,
from Mawson station in Antarctica to Cornwall in England.

The amateur radio operator is working with a facility in England to propagate the signals. Lets do a search on EME Moon Bounce Cornwall England.

The Cornwell facility mentioned is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish operated by the ESA:

http://www.arrl.org/news/goonhilly-32-meter-dish-to-be-active-on-moonbounce-on-september-1-2

Quote
Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

“Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.

I think you need reminding of your own stated rule:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.
The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)


May I remind you the topic is the distance and dimensions to and off the moon. I have stated what I believe them to be and you have not. You are trying to change ‘this  challenge into a critique of the moon bounce method, veering off into allegations of conspiracy, that is not the challenge and under your own rules unless you stick to the challenge YOU LOOSE.

What you need to do before we can progress is state your believed distance and dimensions along with the methodology used. This is not a debate on moon bounce or conspiracy. If you fail to do this I will judge you to have lost, according to your own rules. And as a result I will have ripped you a new one.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 01:48:27 AM
As this is a debate forum it may be a good time to remind all of what is expected in an honest and open debate. These are the words borrowed from a well known writer on the topic.

Two intellectually-honest tactics
There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics.

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with calling your opponent a name that is relevant and objectively defined.

The most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often “college professors” and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common but undefined put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent. “Womanizer” and “price gouger” and “exploiter” are other name-calling names that cannot be objectively defined.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone, for example, a liar when he is, in fact, a liar. Don’t tell me it’s ad hominem. That’s #50. You can’t just say it though. You must prove it.

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. Political people on TV often use the phrase “But the real question is___” or “What the American people are really interested in is___” as a preface to changing the subject.

3. a. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias. Essentially, these all say that the opponent is prohibited from commenting on the topic in question because of what’s in their resume or not in their resume or because of some possible bias.

b. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is like tactic number 2 changing the subject; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers” or in my case, books—questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent’s facts or logic wrong is it invalid. If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be why. But let’s cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Pointing out the suspicious motive obliquely admits there is no error; it’s just an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo. Don’t say why I’m wrong; say where I’m wrong.

c. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of. For example, Professor David Romer of Cal did a study that found coaches should go for a first down far more often and kick far less on fourth down; Some coaches laughed and rejected his findings because he is a “professor,” turning the report sideways when reading it, dismissing Romer as “Ivory Tower.” If Romer is wrong, it is because of an error or omission in his facts or logic; not because he is a college professor. Conspicuous by its absence in the coach’s protests is any evidence of errors or omissions in Dr. Romer’s analysis.

d. My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot. Your resume being bigger than mine suggests a possible reason why I might make a mistake, but that does not absolve you from having to point out the specific error or omission in facts or logic that I made. The fact that I might make a mistake because of insufficient training or experience is not proof that I did make a mistake, and your trying to imply that it is dishonest.

e. Your resume is not big enough for you to comment on this and my resume is irrelevant to whether I can ban you from the discussion by pointing out the inadequacy of yours. This is an admitted know-nothing banning you from the discussion on the grounds that you do not know enough.

4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2: changing the subject

5. False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to successfully by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.”

The opposite is also intellectually dishonest: ignoring facts that already are in evidence.

6. Hearsay: debater cites something he heard, but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources, e.g., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s allegation that a Bain Capital investor whom he refused to name told him that Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes for ten years. He later admitted he had no basis—and bragged, “He didn’t win did he?”

7. Unqualified expert opinion: debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; in court, an expert must prove his qualifications and be certified by the judge before he can give an opinion

8. Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dad’s “Don’t work for money, make money work for you,” is a classic example. Coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism. Jesse Jackson was the champ of this form of dishonesty, e.g., “Up with hope. Down with dope.”

9. Motivation end justifies dishonest means: debater admits he is lying or using fallacious logic, but excuses this on the grounds that he is motivating the audience to accomplish a good thing and that end justifies the intellectually-dishonest means. Bad real estate gurus use this one a lot.

10. Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate because he believes he is more likable than the opponent

11. Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present. A Facebook poster demanded that I debate American “hegemony” with him regarding the Boston Marathon bombers’ motives. I refused on the ground that hegemony was too vague a term. He then “proved” it was not vague by posting the dictionary definition of hegemony. If a word having a dictionary definition proves it’s not vague, then every single word in the English language is not vague because they all have dictionary definitions. Which raises the question of why the word “vague” itself exists. Debates where any party is allowed to use vague terms last forever, are circular, and settle nothing.

12. Playing on widely held fantasies or fears: debater offers facts or logic that support the fantasies or fears of the audience thereby triggering powerful desires to believe that override normal desire for truth or logic

13. Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self: debater makes favorable claims about himself, but when asked for details or proof of the claims, refuses to provide any claiming privacy; true privacy is not mentioning them to begin with; bragging then refusing to prove the claims is silly on its face and it is a rather self-servingly selective use of the right of privacy. This is also big with bad real estate investment gurus.

14. Scapegoating: debater blames problems on persons other than the audience; this is a negative version of playing on widely-held fantasies; it plays on widely-held animosities or dislikes. Hitler’s blaming the Jews for everything that was wrong was the classic example. Politicians blame their opponents for everything that is wrong.

15. Arousing envy: debater attempts to get the audience to dislike his opponent because the audience is envious of something that can be attributed to the opponent; see the 2012 campaign against Romney.

16. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like Leftists calling government spending “investment.” “Life” and “choice” are words that have been warped by abortion antagonists.

17. Citing over-valued credentials: debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to over-rely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the audience; for example, some con men falsely point to government registration of a trademark or corporation as evidence of approval by the government of the con man’s goods or services

18. Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: debater claims to be a member of a group that members of the audience are also members of like a religion, ethnic group, veterans group, and so forth; the debater’s hope is that the audience members will let their guard down with regard to facts and logic as a result and that they will give their alleged fellow group member the benefit of any doubt or even my-group-can-do-no-wrong immunity, also called “affinity fraud”

19. Accusation of taking a quote out of context or “cherry picking:” debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows “fair use” quotes, but not reproduction of the entire text.

Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.”

Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author, a meaning which is very different from the meaning conveyed by the original quote that they complained about.

Furthermore, other unrelated quotes that just suggest the speaker is a nice guy are irrelevant. The discussion is about the offending quotes, not whether the speaker is a good guy. The missing context must relate to, and change the meaning of, the statements objected to, not just serve as character witness material about the speaker or writer.

Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

This was done to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he said that as a consumer he liked to be able to fire people at service providers, by giving his business to one of their competitors, so they would be more motivated to do a good job. It was taken out of context as proof he liked to fire people in general when he was a boss. In the documentary The Best of Enemies about the William F. Buckley, Jr. versus Gore Vidal debates in 1968, Vidal frequently uses isolated quotes from Buckley that misrepresented by being taken out of context.

“Cherry Picking” means nothing more than a person has taken one or more items from a longer list. The sneer with which the phrase is used implies that the items chosen were less worthy than one or more that were not chosen. Probably, it would be hard to arrive at a consensus on what should be in and what should be out.

20. Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute, but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate. Obama can hardly get through a paragraph without committing this violation. Straw-man arguments are easy to spot. They almost all use the phrase “those who.” The antidote to the straw-man tactic? Demand the attacker identify one or more of “those” by name. If he or she fails to do so, you are free to state that their implication that such people ever existed is a lie.

21. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on December 15, 2019, 02:11:20 AM

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Not always the case. It can equal 10. Or 11. It can also equal 22 in a non arithmetic sense. More information is needed.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 03:13:11 AM

Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact.

Not always the case. It can equal 10. Or 11. It can also equal 22 in a non arithmetic sense. More information is needed.

If you wish to debate this point then please do by starting your own discussion. The topic of this debate is the moon its diameter and distance.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 04:49:44 AM
Asking me to demonstrate something about FE appears out of scope of "Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on". Should we assume that you have conceded now?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2019, 04:52:09 AM
Did you explain, with evidence support, how far away the moon is?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 04:57:20 AM
Let's reverse this situation:

You guys: "Tom, tell me something that FE beats RE on"

Tom: 'What prooooof did Newton have???"

No, that doesn't work to address the question. ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 15, 2019, 04:57:42 AM
Quote
Should we assume that you have conceded now?

Nothing to concede is there? If one side claims the Sun and Moon are just 32 miles across and 3000 miles away but cannot explain clearly why then that in itself is a confession on the FE side that nobody knows what they are talking about.

Tom I will ask you this question:  How do you differentiate between proof and evidence?  Because to me Newton never actually proved anything but provided evidence as a way of explaining what he observed.  To the best of his knowledge at the time.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2019, 04:58:44 AM
You guys: "Tom, tell me something that FE beats RE on"

Tom: 'What prooooof did Newton have???"

No, that doesn't work to address the question. ::)
So yes the thread is over. You concede you can’t back up the claimed FE distance to the moon.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 05:02:16 AM
It shouldn't matter if the FE proof is a sentence without evidence. You should be able to show how RE beats FE. This was specifically stated and expected. If the topic is distances, tell us how RE beats FE on that.

Are you guys going to man up or concede?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2019, 05:03:56 AM
“ Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.”

Still waiting.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 07:41:53 AM
Asking me to demonstrate something about FE appears out of scope of "Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on". Should we assume that you have conceded now?

You must be joking! You have presented absolutely nothing. Tell me what makes you think you have won this debate.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 07:42:57 AM
You guys: "Tom, tell me something that FE beats RE on"

Tom: 'What prooooof did Newton have???"

No, that doesn't work to address the question. ::)

Under your own stated rules, changing the subject, YOU LOOSE.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 15, 2019, 07:44:19 AM
It shouldn't matter if the FE proof is a sentence without evidence. You should be able to show how RE beats FE. This was specifically stated and expected. If the topic is distances, tell us how RE beats FE on that.

Are you guys going to man up or concede?

You have put forward nothing positive to this debate.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 07:56:38 AM
Discussing the challenge is definitely on topic.

You posted various links and suggested that the EME Moon Bounce was evidence that "thousands" of amatures independently perform tests for the distance to the Moon, and you were wrong.

If you don't want to discuss that anymore, can you think of anything else regarding how RE beats FE on a topic in astronomy?

It shouldn't matter if the FE proof is a sentence without evidence. You should be able to show how RE beats FE. This was specifically stated and expected. If the topic is distances, tell us how RE beats FE on that.

Are you guys going to man up or concede?

You have put forward nothing positive to this debate.

I don't need to put anything forward. Showing how RE beats FE requires effort on your part.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 15, 2019, 08:16:12 AM
Well one thing which is a fact is that rather clearly at the top of the Wiki page on the Moon it says...

Quote
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

So whoever added this to the Wiki, it is up to them to evidence it.  Whether it was Tom or not.

By the way the lunar eclipse description is perfectly true apart from one minor detail.  Everyone knows that the 'shadow object' is actually the Earth itself but of course no FE would want to admit that now would they!

Quote
Tom clearly shows he has no idea what he is talking about

I would beg to differ. I think Tom knows exactly what he is talking about.  The only problem is that what Tom is talking about is only true in his mind. And of course he spends a disproportionate amount of his time cherry picking through as much 'evidence' as he can find that seems to belittle mainstream science.   
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 15, 2019, 09:56:15 AM
Timeisup, I've already warned you for spamming this thread. If you do it again, I'll give you a few days off to think about it.

NormalHuman (aka Bigfoot) if you feel it is necessary to insult Tom Bishop you are free to do so in Angry Ranting.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on December 15, 2019, 11:08:25 AM
You posted various links and suggested that the EME Moon Bounce was evidence that "thousands" of amatures independently perform tests for the distance to the Moon, and you were wrong.

I don't beleive you that he was wrong.
Are you trying to say that I was also wrong when I measured the Moon bounce timing myself?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2019, 12:11:09 PM
Asking me to demonstrate something about FE appears out of scope of "Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on". Should we assume that you have conceded now?
No, it isn't.
In order to determine if RE beats FE you need to know the position for RE and FE.

So far it seems we have experiments to back up the distance to the moon for a RE (even if you want to claim it is a conspiracy) and deflection for the FE.
I would say that quite clearly shows that RE beats FE.

In order to show that isn't the case you would need to show that the FE has an equal or better determination for the distance to the moon.

Unless you can do that it is pretty clear who should be conceding.

And no, 2 ground stations being needed (and an alternative link between them) doesn't mean it is all a conspiracy.

Again, RE has provided an experiment which you seem to just dismiss as conspiracy, while FE has nothing. RE beats FE.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 15, 2019, 02:28:14 PM
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.
I ignored your challenge when you post stupidity like "I'll rip you a new one!"

I might be able to do respond to your challenge if you did not simply refer everything to your TFES Wiki, which on investigation, contains nothing but unsupported hypotheses.

All I can find in your Wiki is:
Quote
Moon
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
With no evidence to back it up.
Quote
Moon Spherical
The Moon is thought to be spherical due to a slight rocking back and fourth over its monthly cycle called Lunar Liberation, where more than 50% of the lunar surface can be seen over time.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
“ Simulated views of the Moon over one month, demonstrating librations in latitude and longitude.”
Quote
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Moon-face.png/1199px-Moon-face.png)
<< etc >>
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on December 15, 2019, 03:01:13 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?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 03:16:42 PM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?

Sort of like their "kids talk to astronauts" or "send your name to Mars". Pretty weak if you need to rely on a space agency for your evidence.

The challenge was to post something that you think RE beats FE at in astronomy, and I see that you guys have basically have abandoned the EME Moon Bounce and are trying to change the challenge to "prove this about FE". Uh, no. You are supposed to show and demonstrate how RE beats FE at something. So far your response is basically that we need to participate in a government publicity stunt.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on December 15, 2019, 03:20:28 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 15, 2019, 03:33:53 PM
Quote
Heard of a prism?

Yes I have thanks and patronising comments like that are not going to win any arguments with me here. A prism is triangular piece of glass which is used to experiment with spectroscopy.  So what?

If you are going to compare EA with how a prism causes dispersion of white light through a process of double refraction of light then the Moon should be a lot more colorful than it actually is.  I have also passed Moonlight through a prism and you get a lovely spectrum (the solar spectrum) from it. A far better analogy as I'm sure you know would be with a transmission grating but that too causes a dispersion of wavelengths like a prism. Only better.

Tom you can mock and belittle astronomy all you like. You always resort to the same old, same old excuses in a vain attempt to defend the FE side and of course you always will. The very fact that you try to verbally dismiss astronomy is just a clear signal of your ignorance of the subject. Astronomy provides very specifically all the answers that FE simply cannot - hence the reason you don't like it. We are all used to these verbal slagging off speeches of yours, and if you were to think of this discussion as a competition or personal challenge to you (as per the title of the thread) then it is one that RE will always win just like it wins all the others. 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on December 15, 2019, 04:08:29 PM
Quote
Heard of a prism?
If you are going to compare EA with how a prism causes dispersion of white light through a process of double refraction of light then the Moon should be a lot more colorful than it actually is. 

The moon shines all shades. White, yellow, red....Hell there's even blue moons!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 04:29:38 PM
Tom you can mock and belittle astronomy all you like. You always resort to the same old, same old excuses in a vain attempt to defend the FE side and of course you always will. The very fact that you try to verbally dismiss astronomy is just a clear signal of your ignorance of the subject. Astronomy provides very specifically all the answers that FE simply cannot - hence the reason you don't like it. We are all used to these verbal slagging off speeches of yours, and if you were to think of this discussion as a competition or personal challenge to you (as per the title of the thread) then it is one that RE will always win just like it wins all the others.

The other traditional way of determining the Moon's distance in astronomy is through parallax, and which makes an assumption that the Earth is round.

See the following video:



When the earth was assumed to be flat, the same observations computed the Moon to be close to the Earth.

How is RE astronomy superior, when the axioms depend on the shape of the Earth?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 15, 2019, 05:01:00 PM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?
No Tom.  The best evidence in favor of RE astronomy is in the form of over 2000 years of astronomical observations by countless astronomers (government sponsored and otherwise) that only make sense if the earth is round.  What evidence is there in favor of FE astronomy?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 05:14:19 PM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?
No Tom.  The best evidence in favor of RE astronomy is in the form of over 2000 years of astronomical observations by countless astronomers

Those astronomers assumed that the earth was round in their parallax equations to estimate distances. See the above video.

How is an equation which relies on such an assumption the best evidence in favor for this?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 15, 2019, 05:30:16 PM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?
No Tom.  The best evidence in favor of RE astronomy is in the form of over 2000 years of astronomical observations by countless astronomers

Those astronomers assumed that the earth was round in their parallax equations to estimate distances. See the above video.

How is an equation which relies on such an assumption the best evidence in favor for this?
Because when you use those parallax equations on a round earth from different locations and at different times of year, the results are consistent.  What parallax equations give you a consistent results on a flat earth from different locations and different times of year?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 15, 2019, 05:33:32 PM
The other traditional way of determining the Moon's distance in astronomy is through parallax, and which makes an assumption that the Earth is round.

See the following video:



When the earth was assumed to be flat, the same observations computed the Moon to be close to the Earth.
Really!
I dare you to do the same measurement for places say 500 miles from the sub-lunar point and then 5000 miles from the sub-lunar point.

You did not

Quote from: Tom Bishop
How is RE astronomy superior, when the axioms depend on the shape of the Earth?
But you will find that your so-called axioms give inconsistent answers when used on a flat Earth but consistent answers when applied to the Globe Earth.

Give it a go if you like.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2019, 06:06:06 PM
Your answers are "Yes, it's an equation based on an assumption... But if we assume these sets of assumptions on a Flat Earth (straight line light geometry) we get different answers."

Is that a valid defense? No. RET is still unjustified and its astronomy depends on various assumptions about the Earth and nature.

Your idea of how it would work on a Flat Earth with straight line light trigonometry also depends on an assumption, and this assumption is contradictory to its stated astronomical model on tfes.org. None of your "what about FE" justifies your RE. We find that the RE is a weak model that is unable to justify itself.

"What about THIS" is a totally invalid defense, is just another assumption, and does nothing to show that RE provides a sufficient or self justifying answer.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 15, 2019, 06:56:59 PM
Your answers are "Yes, it's an equation based on an assumption... But if we assume these sets of assumptions on a Flat Earth (straight line light geometry) we get different answers."

Is that a valid defense? No. RET is still unjustified and its astronomy depends on various assumptions about the Earth and nature.

Your idea of how it would work on a Flat Earth with straight line light trigonometry also depends on an assumption, and this assumption is contradictory to its stated astronomical model on tfes.org. None of your "what about FE" justifies your RE. We find that the RE is a weak model that is unable to justify itself.
Then why does the Globe model work in the sense that we can make predictions of when the moon will rise and from what direct or when the next lunar eclipse will occur.

And it might be off-topic but the Globe model can also predict the route a plane should fly to get to a given destination.

You don't have a model that allows any such predictions and the best we seem to get is that it's "based on patterns".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
"What about THIS" is a totally invalid defense, is just another assumption, and does nothing to show that RE provides a sufficient or self justifying answer.
You complain about assumptions but then you, yes YOU personally, put this "assumption" in your Wiki!
Quote from: Tom Bishop, TFES Wiki
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Moon-face.png/1199px-Moon-face.png)
What is that but a totally unsupported assumption? I cannot even imagine a possible refractive index profile that could cause such light paths!

Astronomers did not assume the earth was a Globe. They regarded that as so close to being proven that it might as well be called a fact.

I closing, I'm not greatly concerned if you claim all this is off-topic or whatever - I'm more concerned with what the real evidence shows than winning any debate.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 15, 2019, 07:35:13 PM
Your answers are "Yes, it's an equation based on an assumption... But if we assume these sets of assumptions on a Flat Earth (straight line light geometry) we get different answers."

Is that a valid defense? No. RET is still unjustified and its astronomy depends on various assumptions about the Earth and nature.
You keep avoiding the question at hand.  What set of equations and assumptions are required to get consistent results from astronomical observations at different locations and different times of year on a flat earth? 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 15, 2019, 07:37:07 PM
And it might be off-topic...
And with that, you just lost the challenge.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 15, 2019, 08:16:26 PM
And it might be off-topic...
And with that, you just lost the challenge.
And as I stated, that winning or losing a debate is unimportant, it poves nothing.
The Earth simply takes no notice and carries of the shape it's been all along.

Maybe it props up Tom Bishop's ego a bit but so what?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on December 15, 2019, 09:06:13 PM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?

Nope.
You are avoiding the vast number of amateurs.
People in their back yards with their equipment too simple to be tampered with.
Additionally, Copernicus, Bruno, Galilei and others didn't have services of space agencies and governments at all.
On the contrary: The Church was opposing any new data that would show Geocentrism obsolete and Dogma error-prone.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 15, 2019, 10:50:39 PM
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!

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 12:38:26 AM
Sure, we can see if consistent numbers can be made. I've said in the past that I thought the Moon was about 6000 miles high under EAT. Lets go with 6100 miles.

In the video it is said that the two observations were conducted 2352 miles away, between an area near Tampa, Florida and the Bay Area, California. While the Moon was directly overhead of one area (90 degrees) it was at an altitude of 55.4 degrees above the horizon at the other location. 90 degrees - 55.4 degrees = 34.6 degree displacement in the sky between the two areas.

There are 90 degrees from overhead to the horizon, and the Moon travels pretty consistently across the sky as it descends (EAT). 6100 / 90 = 67.77. As the Moon travels away from you, it will descend at one degree for every 67.77 miles it recedes from you.

34.6 degrees x 67.77 miles = 2344.842 miles. Pretty close to the stated distance between those two points.

----

Next I went to mooncalc.org and, using the 'use current date and time' function, I found that the Moon's elevation for those locations at the same time, one right after the other. The time was about 12:19 am PST on Dec 16th, 2019.

Near Tampa Florida:
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/27.8697,-82.6385,7/2019.12.16/03:18/1/2
Moon Altitude: 74.56°

Bay Area California:
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/38.1993,-122.2339,8/2019.12.16/00:19/1/2
Moon Altitude: 39.84°

Difference = 34.72 degrees

Once again:

6100 / 90 = 67.77
34.72 x 67.77 = 2352.77 miles.

We see very similar distance figures again, with a difference of less than 8 miles.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 16, 2019, 12:47:49 AM
So the only evidence in favor of RE astronomy is a service that a space agency or governemnt provides?
Is it surprising that something involving space would be provided by a space agency?
Who would you prefer to provide it? An English literature society? I would be far more suspicious if the latter was providing it.

But no, you don't need the space agency, you (and potentially a partner) can do it yourselves without the government.

The challenge was to post something that you think RE beats FE at in astronomy
And that has been met quite well, by providing the distance to the moon and a signficant part of the details for how it is determined and how you can determine it yourself.
Meanwhile all the FE has offered is deflection.
Can you tell us how far away the moon is and what that is based upon?

The other traditional way of determining the Moon's distance in astronomy is through parallax, and which makes an assumption that the Earth is round.
No, it makes the rational conclusion that the moon is very far away and that Earth is round. This is based upon the moon appearing roughly the same for all observers, yet it completely different directions.
This is another point that RE beats FE on.
If the Earth was flat and the moon was far away, then the moon would appear in basically the same direction to everyone.
If Earth was flat and the moon was close, people would see it vastly different.
But with a RE and a distant moon, the moon appears roughly the same to everyone and the reason it appears to be in a different location is that the reference, Earth's surface is at a different angle.

When the earth was assumed to be flat, the same observations computed the Moon to be close to the Earth.
How is RE astronomy superior, when the axioms depend on the shape of the Earth?
And with a height which varies dramatically depending upon what locations you choose.
You can choose a location with the moon directly above and another with it at 45 degrees and end up with roughly 5000 km.
Or you can choose a location with the moon directly above and another with it basically at the horizon and end up with roughly 0 km.

Yet with a RE, you end up with roughly the same distance, with the errors overlapping.

That is how RE is superior. It produces consistent results. It actually works. It allows one to make useful predictions.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 16, 2019, 01:35:19 AM
So FE asserts that the Moon is just 3000 miles away.  How many ways have been used to actually measure that distance?  Not just claim it, actually measure it?  It is easy to make any one method appear to be right but you can't form a conclusion from that.  If you make the Earth flat then you are introducing an error into your method straight away so you cannot hope to get a right answer. 

Several methods have been used to determine the Moons real distance and all have returned the same figure. But because the figure is one that that FE don't want to accept they will of course dispute it. 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on December 16, 2019, 02:52:15 AM
Lets go with 6100 miles.
...
Next I went to mooncalc.org
...

Ok, here we go with the same 6100 miles and the same mooncalc.org.

On Dec 16th, 2019, at 04:28 UTC-4 we had Moon directly over head in Sabana Larga near Las Matas de Farfan in Dominican Republic.
At the same moment in Chetumal, Belize the moon elevation was 78.31 degree.

Now we have right triangle Moon-Sabana-Chetumal with the right angle in Sabana.
Having the angle at Chetumal to be 78.31 gives the angle at Moon of 11.69 degrees.

Distance from Sabana to Chetumal is then:

Method 1:
6100 x tan(11.69) = 1262 miles

Method 2:
67.77 mile/deg x 11.69 degrees = 792 miles

So, which one will it be?

(HINT: Measured distance between Sabana and Chetumal is 1090 miles.)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 03:07:32 AM
Sure, we can see if consistent numbers can be made. I've said in the past that I thought the Moon was about 6000 miles high under EAT. Lets go with 6100 miles.

In the video it is said that the two observations were conducted 2352 miles away, between the Bay Area in California and an area near Tampa, Florida. While the Moon was directly overhead of one area (90 degrees) it was at an altitude of 55.4 degrees above the horizon at the other location. 90 degrees - 55.4 degrees = 34.6 degree displacement in the sky between the two areas.

There are 90 degrees from overhead to the horizon, and the Moon travels pretty consistently across the sky as it descends (EAT). 6100 / 90 = 67.77. As the Moon travels away from you, it will descend at one degree for every 67.77 miles it recedes from you.

34.6 degrees x 67.77 miles = 2344.842 miles. Pretty close to the stated distance between those two points.

----

Next I went to mooncalc.org and, using the 'use current date and time function', I found that the Moon's elevation for those locations at the same time, one right after the other. The time was about 12:19 am PST on Dec 16th, 2019.

Near Tampa Florida:
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/27.8697,-82.6385,7/2019.12.16/03:18/1/2
Moon Altitude: 74.56°

Bay Area California:
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/38.1993,-122.2339,8/2019.12.16/00:19/1/2
Moon Altitude: 39.84°

Difference = 34.72 degrees

Once again:

6100 / 90 = 67.77
34.72 x 67.77 = 2352.77 miles.

We see very similar distance figures again, with a difference of less than 8 miles.
Brilliant ;D! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.

Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 11:06:39 AM
Lets go with 6100 miles.
...
Next I went to mooncalc.org
...

Ok, here we go with the same 6100 miles and the same mooncalc.org.

On Dec 16th, 2019, at 04:28 UTC-4 we had Moon directly over head in Sabana Larga near Las Matas de Farfan in Dominican Republic.
At the same moment in Chetumal, Belize the moon elevation was 78.31 degree.

Now we have right triangle Moon-Sabana-Chetumal with the right angle in Sabana.
Having the angle at Chetumal to be 78.31 gives the angle at Moon of 11.69 degrees.

Distance from Sabana to Chetumal is then:

Method 1:
6100 x tan(11.69) = 1262 miles

Method 2:
67.77 mile/deg x 11.69 degrees = 792 miles

So, which one will it be?

(HINT: Measured distance between Sabana and Chetumal is 1090 miles.)

I got more like a 15 degree displacement when I tried it for that time.

Sabana Larga (4:28 UTC-4)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.6433,-70.5947,12/2019.12.16/04:28/1/2
88.99°

Chetumal (3:28 UTC-5) -- Chetumal is an hour behind Dominican Republic (https://savvytime.com/converter/utc-to-dominican-republic-sabana-grande-de-boya-mexico-chetumal)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.5083,-88.3328,10/2019.12.16/03:28/1/2
73.88°

88.99° - 73.88° = 15.11 degree displacement

15.11 x 67.77 miles per degree (from my previous message) = 1024.0047 miles

Pretty close to your stated 1090 miles.

Brilliant ;D! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.

Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.

The evidence for EA is on the EA page.

Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 11:13:02 AM
Lets go with 6100 miles.
...
Next I went to mooncalc.org
...

Ok, here we go with the same 6100 miles and the same mooncalc.org.

On Dec 16th, 2019, at 04:28 UTC-4 we had Moon directly over head in Sabana Larga near Las Matas de Farfan in Dominican Republic.
At the same moment in Chetumal, Belize the moon elevation was 78.31 degree.

Now we have right triangle Moon-Sabana-Chetumal with the right angle in Sabana.
Having the angle at Chetumal to be 78.31 gives the angle at Moon of 11.69 degrees.

Distance from Sabana to Chetumal is then:

Method 1:
6100 x tan(11.69) = 1262 miles

Method 2:
67.77 mile/deg x 11.69 degrees = 792 miles

So, which one will it be?

(HINT: Measured distance between Sabana and Chetumal is 1090 miles.)

I got more like a 15 degree displacement when I tried it for that time.

Sabana Larga (4:28 UTC-4)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.6453,-70.5484,12/2019.12.16/04:28/1/2
88.95°

Chetumal (3:28 UTC-5) -- Chetumal is an hour behind Dominican Republic (https://savvytime.com/converter/utc-to-dominican-republic-sabana-grande-de-boya-mexico-chetumal)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.5141,-88.3095,10/2019.12.16/03:28/1/2
73.90°

= 15.05 x 67.77

= 1019.9385 miles

Pretty close to your stated 1090 miles.

Brilliant ;D! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.

Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.

The evidence for EA is on the EA page.

Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?

Give an example of an FE equation that doesn't make the same assumption.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 16, 2019, 12:00:47 PM
The evidence for EA is on the EA page.
Care to explain how it works to produce the results expected for a RE?

Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?
No, it is based upon the conclusion of a RE and a distant moon.
The only "assumption" required is the isotropy of the universe.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on December 16, 2019, 12:13:50 PM
You've really shaken the bee's nest on this one Tom. Kudos on putting these globularists in their place; they can't even fathom a basic defense for RE astrology.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on December 16, 2019, 12:32:09 PM
Lets go with 6100 miles.
...
Next I went to mooncalc.org
...

Ok, here we go with the same 6100 miles and the same mooncalc.org.

On Dec 16th, 2019, at 04:28 UTC-4 we had Moon directly over head in Sabana Larga near Las Matas de Farfan in Dominican Republic.
At the same moment in Chetumal, Belize the moon elevation was 78.31 degree.

Now we have right triangle Moon-Sabana-Chetumal with the right angle in Sabana.
Having the angle at Chetumal to be 78.31 gives the angle at Moon of 11.69 degrees.

Distance from Sabana to Chetumal is then:

Method 1:
6100 x tan(11.69) = 1262 miles

Method 2:
67.77 mile/deg x 11.69 degrees = 792 miles

So, which one will it be?

(HINT: Measured distance between Sabana and Chetumal is 1090 miles.)

I got more like a 15 degree displacement when I tried it for that time.

Sabana Larga (4:28 UTC-4)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.6433,-70.5947,12/2019.12.16/04:28/1/2
88.99°

Chetumal (3:28 UTC-5) -- Chetumal is an hour behind Dominican Republic (https://savvytime.com/converter/utc-to-dominican-republic-sabana-grande-de-boya-mexico-chetumal)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.5083,-88.3328,10/2019.12.16/03:28/1/2
73.88°

88.99° - 73.88° = 15.11 degree displacement

15.11 x 67.77 miles per degree (from my previous message) = 1024.0047 miles

Pretty close to your stated 1090 miles.

Brilliant ;D! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.

Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.

The evidence for EA is on the EA page.

Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?

That puts the moon at 3340 miles away.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 16, 2019, 12:33:31 PM
Quote
they can't even fathom a basic defense for RE astrology

I am certainly not going to defend astrology. I think that is a load of rubbish as well.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 12:44:43 PM
You've really shaken the bee's nest on this one Tom. Kudos on putting these globularists in their place; they can't even fathom a basic defense for RE astrology.

If you mean unable to answer straight questions, provide any factual evidence, inability to do basic maths, maths copied from an RE hypothesis no less, and quoting a WIKI that is not even consistent to itself...

Yup he sure has got us on the ropes.

You're a Gemini right?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on December 16, 2019, 01:25:45 PM
As others have pointed out, I mistyped astronomy. Apologies. Never the less, you have failed to account for even one reason RE astronomy explains something better than FE astronomy. This, with the entire world and 1000s of years of round earth research on your side.

I can see why you'd resort to attacking an obvious typo; you have no other basis.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 01:31:27 PM
As others have pointed out, I mistyped astronomy. Apologies. Never the less, you have failed to account for even one reason RE astronomy explains something better than FE astronomy. This, with the entire world and 1000s of years of round earth research on your side.

I can see why you'd resort to attacking an obvious typo; you have no other basis.

Couldn't resist 😉

Topics got a bit dispersed, and jumped about a bit, but have made a few points to Tom regarding his stance on Astronomy being a pseudo science, to which he wont respond.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on December 16, 2019, 01:35:20 PM
Never the less
The REAL John Davis is a poet and would know that "nevertheless" is a single word.  Release him!

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
The topic has already been changed so many times that this no longer applies, right?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on December 16, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
Never the less
The REAL John Davis is a poet and would know that "nevertheless" is a single word.  Release him!

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
The topic has already been changed so many times that this no longer applies, right?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=never+the+less&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Cnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0

The truth of the matter is the astronomer has as much idea of the distance to his studied objects as does a mortician who has never seen a dead man.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 01:49:28 PM
Never the less
The REAL John Davis is a poet and would know that "nevertheless" is a single word.  Release him!

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
The topic has already been changed so many times that this no longer applies, right?
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=never+the+less&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Cnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BNever%20the%20less%3B%2Cc0

The truth of the matter is the astronomer has as much idea of the distance to his studied objects as does a mortician who has never seen a dead man.

Citation needed
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on December 16, 2019, 02:07:50 PM
I would like to know why TomB thinks its rational to use the east-west map.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 02:15:51 PM
Brilliant ;D! You have to drag in a completely unsupported assumption of EAT to make your "model" fit reality.

Maybe you refer us mortals to where this EAT is defined so precisely.

The evidence for EA is on the EA page.
You claim that "the evidence for EA is on the EA page" but I've read that and can find nothing that I would call evidence, nothing!
Here are the headings on that page. Would you please point out where this evidence is to be found:
Quote from: TFES Wiki by Tom Bishop
Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration)
The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards. All light curves upwards over very long distances. The Electromagnetic Accelerator has been adopted as a modern alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe.

Mechanism
One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence. Get into a car and attempt to drive in a perfectly straight line down a highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. It is a near impossible thing to do. The car is affected by the slope and texture of the terrain, alignment of your wheels, the wind, &c. An apparently straight heading turns into a curved one. When it comes to bullets, airplanes, et all, it is expected that bodies never realistically travel straightly. Straight line trajectories rarely, if ever, occur in nature.

While the mechanism which affects light over long distances is not known, the cosmological theme of upwards acceleration fits in with this Flat Earth model.

Approximation

Articles of Interest
  • Light Bends Itself Around Corners - Physicsworld.com (https://physicsworld.com/a/light-bends-itself-round-corners/)
  • Stanford Researchers Use Synthetic Magnetism to Control Light (https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/taming-mavericks-stanford-researchers-use-synthetic-magnetism-control-light)
Simple saying "One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!

And neither is "While the mechanism which affects light over long distances is not known, the cosmological theme of upwards acceleration fits in with this Flat Earth model."
That is simply saying that the EA assumption "fits in with this Flat Earth model".

Nothing in "Approximation" is evidence.

Then nothing in your "Articles of Interest" is relevant to the natural world - they are both very artificial situations involving complex equipment. You did note this at the end of the first article.
Quote
Ingenious, but not new?
Jérôme Kasparian of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, who was not involved in the latest work, is enthusiastic, explaining that the two groups have “elaborated a general framework to describe and therefore predict” large-angle bending of light. However, Michael Berry of Bristol University in the UK, is less so. He believes that the authors do not make it clear that in their experiments they are not bending light rays themselves but the rays’ envelopes, or “caustics”. “The technical details in these papers are ingenious and interesting to specialists, and I hope the renewed emphasis will lead to applications,” he says. “But while the papers are technically interesting, they are unsurprising because they contain no fundamental new idea.”
There's nothing there to support your huge "bending of light" and nothing to support magnetism bending light either!

In other words, you have done nothing than create an unsupported hypothesis that explains observations based on the assumption of a flat Earth.

Talk about "Double Standards"!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Do you recall that you have already admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed in the equations and that the distances were unable to be justified without assuming a RE?
Not quite!
Your "admitted that the round earth assumption was assumed" is making it look like some great concession but it certainly is not.

Astronomy on the Globe is, of course, based on the Earth being close to spherical.
But that spherical shape has been the accepted shape for at least 2300 years, initially with little evidence.
That initial evidence certainly showed that without the assumptions you are now making a spherical shape is far more likely.

Observational astronomy since that has been ultimately based little more than the "assumption" that light (and all other EM radiation) travels in straight in a homogenous medium. It was realised as early as 100 AD that the atmosphere did cause light to bend very slightly. How slightly is shown in here: Atmospheric Refraction by David Basey (https://britastro.org/node/17066)
Quote from: A. I. Mahan
Astronomical Refraction–Some History and Theories (https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-1-4-497)
Abstract
Astronomical refraction has had a long and fascinating history. Cleomedes (100 A.D.) and Ptolemy (200 A.D.) were aware of its existence and understood in a qualitative way some of its properties. Alhazen (1100 A.D.) quite correctly suggested that the flattening of the sun’s disk near the horizon was due to astronomical refraction. Tycho Brahe in 1587, however, was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction. The first theory of astronomical refraction based on Snell’s law was that of Cassini, who in 1656 looked upon the earth’s atmosphere as being of constant refractive index up to its upper limit at which all the refraction took place.
And, as noted, Tycho Brahe "was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction".

Since that time refraction in air and other materials has been extensively studied.

The is no evidence of any medium between here and the sun or moon that could cause any "bending of light" of the magnitudes you are claiming.

The refractive index of air at sea-level is about 1.00029 and it approaches 1.00000 (the refractive index of a vacuum) comparatively rapidly.
This is based on extensive studies of the properties of the atmosphere (especially pressure, density and temperature) up to around 80,000 metres.
By this altitude, the pressure and density have fallen to typically 0.303 Pa and 5.64 x 10-06 kg/m3.
There is no evidence from sounding rocket measurements, etc, that the density does other than keep falling from that altitude.

So, where is there any evidence of this Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 02:24:50 PM
Simple saying "One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!

It seems that you should keep reading.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Quote
Moon Tilt Illusion

The Electromagnetic Accelerator is able to make unique predictions and predict phenomena that the Round Earth Theory does not. If the Sun is illuminating the Moon under straight line geometry, such as in RET, then it would be expected that the illuminated portion of the Moon will always point at the Sun, much like how when shining a flashlight at a ball the illuminated portion of the ball will always appear to point at the flashlight to observers positioned around the ball. It is natural and expected that the illuminated portion of a body will appear to point at its light source. Because the image of the Moon's nearside face is flipped to observers due to Electromagnetic Acceleration, however, the illuminated portion of the Moon will often be seen to point away from the Sun.

See the Moon Tilt Illusion (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion)

Celestial Sphere

Electromagnetic Acceleration predicts that our observations would appear as if we were inside of a dome. And indeed, this is what we experience. Straight line geometry stops working in the distance. When looking out over large distances it appears as if we are on the inside of a planetarium where straight lines become curved on a dome surface. Astronomers acknowledge this effect and attribute the phenomena to the celestial sphere, which assumes that our celestial observations are projected onto a sphere around the observer.

See the Celestial Sphere (https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere)

See Also
High Altitude Horizon Dip (https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 02:25:53 PM
You've really shaken the bee's nest on this one Tom. Kudos on putting these globularists in their place;
You're jesting again!
How is Tom's "Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory Hypothesis" (AKA Tom's Bendy Light) going to put anyone in their place, other than possibly Tome Bishop himself?

Quote from: John Davis
they can't even fathom a basic defense for RE astrology ::).
Why should anyone "fathom a basic defense for RE astrology"

I couldn't care less about astrology in any shape or form.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on December 16, 2019, 03:05:10 PM
I got more like a 15 degree displacement when I tried it for that time.

Sabana Larga (4:28 UTC-4)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.6433,-70.5947,12/2019.12.16/04:28/1/2
88.99°

Chetumal (3:28 UTC-5) -- Chetumal is an hour behind Dominican Republic (https://savvytime.com/converter/utc-to-dominican-republic-sabana-grande-de-boya-mexico-chetumal)
https://www.mooncalc.org/#/18.5083,-88.3328,10/2019.12.16/03:28/1/2
73.88°

88.99° - 73.88° = 15.11 degree displacement

15.11 x 67.77 miles per degree (from my previous message) = 1024.0047 miles

Pretty close to your stated 1090 miles.

We have two options:
First, light goes in straight lines, plus or minus couple of arc minutes.
Second, light bends much more to accomodate moonset.

First case, those 15 degrees and 6100 miles give this:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IVya9Q.png)

Second case, constant apparent angular speed would require
tangent function for linear speed of the Moon to follow light bending,
which would:
a) ruin the linearity of 67.77 miles per degree
b) give inconsistent Moon movement for multiple simultaneos observers.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 03:20:48 PM
Simple saying "One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!

It seems that you should keep reading.
I did but none of that is evidence! It's no more than claiming that your Electromagnetic_Acceleration Hypothesis explains observations that fit with the Globe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Quote
Moon Tilt Illusion

The Electromagnetic Accelerator is able to make unique predictions and predict phenomena that the Round Earth Theory does not.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the image of the Moon's nearside face is flipped to observers due to Electromagnetic Acceleration, however, the illuminated portion of the Moon will often be seen to point away from the Sun.

See the Moon Tilt Illusion (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion)
Please be accurate and say, "the illuminated portion of the Moon will often seem to be seen to point away from the Sun".

The Moon Tilt Illusion is an intriguing illusion but it is simply an illusion based on viewing directions and perspective.
See The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/) for a forum discussion on the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Or The Moon Tilt Illusion by Andrea K. Myers-Beaghton and Alan L. Myers (https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) for a more analytical treatment.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Celestial Sphere

Electromagnetic Acceleration predicts that our observations would appear as if we were inside of a dome. And indeed, this is what we experience. Straight line geometry stops working in the distance. When looking out over large distances it appears as if we are on the inside of a planetarium where straight lines become curved on a dome surface. Astronomers acknowledge this effect and attribute the phenomena to the celestial sphere, which assumes that our celestial observations are projected onto a sphere around the observer.

See the Celestial Sphere (https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere)
But that is not evidence in favour of your Electromagnetic Acceleration.
"Straight line geometry" DOES NOT "stop working in the distance" though light can be bent very slightly by strong gravitational fields.

And in "Astronomers acknowledge this effect", "this effect" is nothing more than our inability to perceive astronomical distances so they all seem "a great distance away".

 The celestial objects do appear as though on a celestial sphere simply because we have no way to perceive astronomical distances

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
See Also
High Altitude Horizon Dip (https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip)
But that is, again, no evidence that EAT is correct. It is still nothing more than a hypothesis with no explainable mechanism that assumes a flat Earth.

It might be different if you could even show a plausible refractive index profile that might cause it but you have never even attempted to do that.

It is just an approximate equation that (apparently) happens to make observations on your flat-Earth fit those observed on the Globe.

An equation can be fitted to nearly anything but it is meaningless unless based on some underlying mechanism.

If you could come up with a comparatively simple equation based on exhaustive experimental evidence it might legitimately be called a "Law".
Such Laws are Newton's Laws of Motion, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, Coulomb's Law of the various Gas Laws.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 16, 2019, 03:30:17 PM
Quote
Never the less, you have failed to account for even one reason RE astronomy explains something better than FE astronomy

That's one way to think of it John.  I could equally say that you just refuse to accept the RE astronomy measurements of basic figures like the distance of the Moon, Sun etc because you believe the Earth is flat.  So you won't accept the laser and radar based measurements of the distance to the Moon and Venus which have been carried out many times over many years to a high level of precision.  That is not what I would call 'failed to account' but I'm sure you will have your own ways and means of declaring those measurements to be invalid for whatever reason.

Its not that RE Astronomy can't account for it, it's more a case of you won't accept the RE account and never will so the discussion might as well stop there.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 03:32:48 PM
Simple saying "One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!

It seems that you should keep reading.
I did but none of that is evidence! It's no more than claiming that your Electromagnetic_Acceleration Hypothesis explains observations that fit with the Globe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Quote
Moon Tilt Illusion

The Electromagnetic Accelerator is able to make unique predictions and predict phenomena that the Round Earth Theory does not.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the image of the Moon's nearside face is flipped to observers due to Electromagnetic Acceleration, however, the illuminated portion of the Moon will often be seen to point away from the Sun.

See the Moon Tilt Illusion (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion)
Please be accurate and say, "the illuminated portion of the Moon will often seem to be seen to point away from the Sun".

The Moon Tilt Illusion is an intriguing illusion but it is simply an illusion based on viewing directions and perspective.
See The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/) for a forum discussion on the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Or The Moon Tilt Illusion by Andrea K. Myers-Beaghton and Alan L. Myers (https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) for a more analytical treatment.

Look at what your source Professor Myers says in the PDF that you linked:

"Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination. For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere surrounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere."

(https://i.imgur.com/6N2LeAv.png)

"The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

That doesn't sound like straight line geometry to me.

Per his predictive equations, Professor Myers explains that the celestial sphere is used as an axiom in the work.

  “ Our aim is to derive an equation for the magnitude of the moon tilt illusion that is straightforward to apply to all configurations of sun and moon in the sky. The viewer’s expectation for the direction of incoming light is modeled using vector geometry, which is appropriate for treating 3-D straight lines such as the sun-moon light ray. Analyzing an illusion may seem trivial but the explanation of the moon tilt illusion requires knowledge of the perspective projection basis of human vision, vector algebra, and geometrical concepts such as orthographic projections, the celestial sphere, and geodesics. ”

According to Professor Myers, once we consider geometrical concepts such as the celestial sphere, where straight lines become curved, we can explain the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 03:42:16 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
But that is not evidence in favour of your Electromagnetic Acceleration.
"Straight line geometry" DOES NOT "stop working in the distance" though light can be bent very slightly by strong gravitational fields.

Really? Explain the one about the sun charts at the end.

Quote
Over the course of the year the path of the Sun is seen to curve upon a dome, which can be seen in sun charts. Penn State University provides an overview of 'sky domes', projections, and polar sun charts:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534 (Archive)

2.13 Sky Dome and Projections

Sun Charts: Projections of Solar Events and Shadowing from the Sky Dome

  “ The emphasis of this lesson is the Sun Chart tool (or Sun Path). These flat diagrams are found in many solar design tools, but may look completely foreign to the new student in solar energy. How do we interpret the arcs and points plotted on a sun chart? Why do we have two different types of plots (one looks like a rectangle, and one looks like a circle)? Why do some plots go from 0-360°, while others go from -180° to +180°?

If we want to visually convert our observations of the sky-dome onto a two-dimensional medium, we can either use an orthographic projection or a spherical projection on a polar chart. These projections are useful for calculating established times of solar availability or shadowing for a given point of solar collection. ...The Sky Dome refers to the sum of the components for the entire sky from horizon to zenith, and in all azimuthal directions.

~

Projections

The sky dome can be projected onto flat surfaces for analysis of shading and sky component behavior.

(https://i.imgur.com/AbyVQUA.png)

Figure 2.15: The sky dome as projected to the right in orthographic form, and as projected upward in polar form.

~

Polar Projection: takes the sky dome and projects altitude and azimuth values down onto a circular plane. However, in the polar projection, the arc for December 21 is at the top while the arc for June 21 is at the bottom. This happens because we are effectively lying on the ground with our heads facing south, and holding that large piece of paper straight up to the sky.

(https://i.imgur.com/CllnEpn.png)

Figure 2.17: Polar Projection ”

The above is a polar sun chart, showing how the sun would move as if we were laying on the ground with our head towards the south. If one were to hold a large piece of paper straight up into the air, over the course of the year the sun would shine through the paper and trace arcs across the sky. Despite the sun's ecliptic being a plane which cuts through the earth, the path of the sun is seen to curve in the sky.

At the bottom of the page we see that the polar projection sun chart was generated with the University of Oregon's Polar Sun Chart Program. (http://solardat.uoregon.edu/PolarSunChartProgram.php) Using this tool to create a polar sun chart for the opposite Southern Hemisphere version of the above polar sun chart, for Latitude -40.79 and Longitude -77.85, we see the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/GHsCvDe.png)

Notice that the day of December 21st is convex in the Northern Hemisphere and concave in the Southern Hemisphere. The shape of the curve for the same day is seen to be convex or concave for different observers simultaneously, truly as if each observer had his or her own personal planitarium-like "dome" of vision.

How does a spinning ball earth and straight line geometry make these sun path patterns that are concave and convex for different observers simultaneously? Explain.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 16, 2019, 03:51:48 PM
This 'Moon tilt illusion' which is also equally valid for the constellations and all other celestial bodies as well is simply caused by the effect of the Earths rotation and polar tilt.  Why do so many people on here try to overcomplicate things by going on about electromagnetic accelerators and whatever else? 

If you have an alt azimuth mounted telescope for LX imaging purposes you can get field de-rotators to correct the effect.

https://www.telescope.com/Meade-Imaging-Field-De-Rotator-1220/p/113810.uts

Note the bit of this page where it explains
Quote
If you want to do long exposure photo or CCD imaging (over 5 minutes) in altazimuth mode without a wedge, you can correct for field rotation (which results from the scope not rotating on the same axis that the earth does) with the #1220 Field De-Rotator.

Essential if you are going to image DSOs because otherwise imaging a target on the celestial equator will end up looking as if you were aimed at the celestial pole! You don't need a field rotator with an equatorially mounted telescope because the telescope itself is tilted in line with the Earths polar axis and so that naturally cancels out the tilt.  Does it occur to you that if your electromagnetic accelerator idea was right then equatorially mounted telescopes on a flat Earth wouldn't work.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 03:54:39 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
But that is not evidence in favour of your Electromagnetic Acceleration.
"Straight line geometry" DOES NOT "stop working in the distance" though light can be bent very slightly by strong gravitational fields.

Really? Explain the one about the sun charts at the end.

Quote
Over the course of the year the path of the Sun is seen to curve upon a dome, which can be seen in sun charts. Penn State University provides an overview of 'sky domes', projections, and polar sun charts:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534 (Archive)

2.13 Sky Dome and Projections

Sun Charts: Projections of Solar Events and Shadowing from the Sky Dome

  “ The emphasis of this lesson is the Sun Chart tool (or Sun Path). These flat diagrams are found in many solar design tools, but may look completely foreign to the new student in solar energy. How do we interpret the arcs and points plotted on a sun chart? Why do we have two different types of plots (one looks like a rectangle, and one looks like a circle)? Why do some plots go from 0-360°, while others go from -180° to +180°?

If we want to visually convert our observations of the sky-dome onto a two-dimensional medium, we can either use an orthographic projection or a spherical projection on a polar chart. These projections are useful for calculating established times of solar availability or shadowing for a given point of solar collection. ...The Sky Dome refers to the sum of the components for the entire sky from horizon to zenith, and in all azimuthal directions.

~

Projections

The sky dome can be projected onto flat surfaces for analysis of shading and sky component behavior.

(https://i.imgur.com/AbyVQUA.png)

Figure 2.15: The sky dome as projected to the right in orthographic form, and as projected upward in polar form.

~

Polar Projection: takes the sky dome and projects altitude and azimuth values down onto a circular plane. However, in the polar projection, the arc for December 21 is at the top while the arc for June 21 is at the bottom. This happens because we are effectively lying on the ground with our heads facing south, and holding that large piece of paper straight up to the sky.

(https://i.imgur.com/CllnEpn.png)

Figure 2.17: Polar Projection ”

The above is a polar sun chart, showing how the sun would move as if we were laying on the ground with our head towards the south. If one were to hold a large piece of paper straight up into the air, over the course of the year the sun would shine through the paper and trace arcs across the sky. Despite the sun's ecliptic being a plane which cuts through the earth, the path of the sun is seen to curve in the sky.

At the bottom of the page we see that the polar projection sun chart was generated with the University of Oregon's Polar Sun Chart Program. (http://solardat.uoregon.edu/PolarSunChartProgram.php) Using this tool to create a polar sun chart for the opposite Southern Hemisphere version of the above polar sun chart, for Latitude -40.79 and Longitude -77.85, we see the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/GHsCvDe.png)

Notice that the day of December 21st is convex in the Northern Hemisphere and concave in the Southern Hemisphere. The shape of the curve for the same day is seen to be convex or concave for different observers simultaneously, truly as if each observer had his or her own personal planitarium-like "dome" of vision.

How does a spinning ball earth and straight line geometry make these sun path patterns that are concave and convex for different observers simultaneously? Explain.

Cherry picking Tom

Do you have an FE source for any of your posts, or do you believe the earth is a sphere, rotating on a tilted axis, around a star around 93 million miles away?

Should really check your sources.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 03:59:24 PM
Simple saying "One may point out that it would be quite unreasonable to assert that a particle or wave in motion would travel forever through the universe in a perfectly straight line, unperturbed by any of the variety of forces or phenomena which fills existence" is NOT evidence!

It seems that you should keep reading.
I did but none of that is evidence! It's no more than claiming that your Electromagnetic_Acceleration Hypothesis explains observations that fit with the Globe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Quote
Moon Tilt Illusion

The Electromagnetic Accelerator is able to make unique predictions and predict phenomena that the Round Earth Theory does not.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because the image of the Moon's nearside face is flipped to observers due to Electromagnetic Acceleration, however, the illuminated portion of the Moon will often be seen to point away from the Sun.

See the Moon Tilt Illusion (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion)
Please be accurate and say, "the illuminated portion of the Moon will often seem to be seen to point away from the Sun".

The Moon Tilt Illusion is an intriguing illusion but it is simply an illusion based on viewing directions and perspective.
See The Moon Tilt & Terminator Illusions (https://www.metabunk.org/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.t8165/) for a forum discussion on the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Or The Moon Tilt Illusion by Andrea K. Myers-Beaghton and Alan L. Myers (https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf) for a more analytical treatment.

Look at what your source Professor Myers says in the PDF that you linked:

"Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because locations of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination. For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere surrounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere."

(https://i.imgur.com/6N2LeAv.png)

"The moon tilt illusion is not described in astronomy textbooks because astronomers know that straight lines in object space become great circles on the celestial sphere."

That doesn't sound like straight line geometry to me.

Per his predictive equations, Professor Myers explains that the celestial sphere is used as an axiom in the work.

  “ Our aim is to derive an equation for the magnitude of the moon tilt illusion that is straightforward to apply to all configurations of sun and moon in the sky. The viewer’s expectation for the direction of incoming light is modeled using vector geometry, which is appropriate for treating 3-D straight lines such as the sun-moon light ray. Analyzing an illusion may seem trivial but the explanation of the moon tilt illusion requires knowledge of the perspective projection basis of human vision, vector algebra, and geometrical concepts such as orthographic projections, the celestial sphere, and geodesics. ”

According to Professor Myers we must consider geometrical concepts such as the celestial sphere, where straight lines become curved, to explain the Moon Tilt Illusion.

Ok let's assume you have a hypothesis.

Run the numbers through your approximation, make a prediction, then we can make an observation.

I mean that sounds a lot like astronomy but hey.

When inputting the numbers, can you take us through parsifals equation, how you calculated c and the math behind the bishop constant and justifications for any assumptions made.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 05:43:43 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
But that is not evidence in favour of your Electromagnetic Acceleration.
"Straight line geometry" DOES NOT "stop working in the distance" though light can be bent very slightly by strong gravitational fields.

Really? Explain the one about the sun charts at the end.
Not before you explain in detail how your EAT equation explains it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
How does a spinning ball earth and straight line geometry make these sun path patterns that are concave and convex for different observers simultaneously? Explain.
I thought that's what the reference you quoted did. Everything there is based on a spherical Earth and straight line geometry.
It need make no assumption about a "spinning ball ". It works just as well for the stationary Earth of Ptolemy or Johannes de Sacrobosco!

But you omitted this introductory bit:
Quote
2.13 Sky Dome and Projections (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534)
Sun Charts: Projections of Solar Events and Shadowing from the Sky Dome

What are Sun Charts?

If we want to visually convert our observations of the sky-dome onto a two-dimensional medium, we can either use an orthographic projection or a spherical projection on a polar chart. These projections are useful for calculating established times of solar availability or shadowing for a given point of solar collection.

The Sun Path describes the arc of the sun across the sky in relation to an earth-bound observer at a given latitude and time.

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme810/files/images/Lesson_02/2.14.png)
Figure 2.14: We display the path of the Sun across two days for the Northern Hemisphere. One day in
summer and one in winter, where the trail of the beam has been projected onto the sky dome using
angular coordinates of solar azimuth and solar altitude.

Credit: Jeffrey R. S. Brownson
.
It should be clear enough once you realise that the Sun appears to circle about an axis normal to those circles representing the Sun's paths.
Though it should be pointed out that the axis rotation is really through the centre Earth some 6370 miles below.
A diagram like this is only meaningful if the distance to the Sun is extremely large compared to the size of the Earth.

I fail to see any problem with it.

But this has been part of Cosmology from even centuries before the Globe.
Quote
Thales' model of the Universe (https://spark.iop.org/thales-model-universe#gref)[/url]
The early Greek philosopher Thales, in about 600 BC, proposed a model to explain the daily motion of the stars.
Thales and his student and successor, Anaximander, both believed that the Earth was flat.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vlr2525336bqks0/Thales%20model%20of%20the%20Universe%203.jpg?dl=1)
Note that in all these early Cosmologies, even the flat-Earth ones, the celestial sphere surrounds the and the Sun, Moon and stars do not circle above the earth as you claim!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 05:54:34 PM
You have failed to explain why the sun is curving concavely for one observer and convexly for the other observer simultaneously.

Look at a distant streetlight and spin around. Do you see it curving? If you tilt your head 20 degrees and spin around, do you see it curving?

Explain it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Stash on December 16, 2019, 06:16:26 PM
Explain it.

That's precisely what has been asked of you. You invoke EAT so can you explain the 'approximation' formula and run something through it and see if it meets with observations? For instance, how does the "Bishop constant" work?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 06:32:04 PM
You have failed to explain why the sun is curving concavely for one observer and convexly for the other observer simultaneously.
The Sun's path always appears as a circle about the axis of rotation - the axis of the Earth.
An equatorial sundial demonstrates this well. Thanks gnomon of the sundial must be parallel with the axis of the Earth.

Those diagrams show the azimuth of the Sun as the angle and the altitude in the radial direction. Note that 0° (on the horizon) is at the outside and 90° (overhead) is in the centre.

The first is at Latitude 40.79° N and Longitude 77.85° W and the second at Latitude 40.79° S and Longitude 77.85° W so thereal is an 81.58° angle difference between the surfaces the viewers are on.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Look at a distant streetlight and spin around. Do you see it curving? If you tilt your head 20 degrees and spin around, do you see it curving?

Explain it.
No, why should it? It is not the same thing at all.

And you have failed to explain any of it using your EAT! Explain it!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 07:37:50 PM
I can see how a celestial path can turn into a curve around the observer due to EA. As the points of path gets further from the observer it also drops in altitude. Consider a simplified straight line somewhere above and near the observer:

(https://i.imgur.com/N8lJHNo.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/G22Bjqb.png)

If you add another line on the other side of the observer, and if the observer lays on the floor and looks "up" then the observer's 180 degrees of vision would see two oppositely arcing curves. This is how paths can seem to be convex or concave depending on their position around the observer.

Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Look at a distant streetlight and spin around. Do you see it curving? If you tilt your head 20 degrees and spin around, do you see it curving?
No

So then you are conceding that this doesn't work with straight line geometry. I see.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2019, 07:38:26 PM
I can see how a celestial path can turn into a curve due to EA. As the points of bodies get further from the observer they also drop in altitude.

(https://i.imgur.com/3aO3Y8F.png)
Tom, are you saying that celestial bodies move in straight lines? ???
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 07:47:20 PM
It doesn't have to be a straight line, but it can be. The Milky Way is supposed to be a straight line which we are viewing from the side, and astronomers say that it curves on the celestial sphere:

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way

 "The Milky Way appears straightest when it is most directly overhead. Astronomy senior editor Rich Talcott points out, “The plane of the Milky Way projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere (as does the ecliptic, which we are also in). So both the Milky Way and the ecliptic appear as large circles in the sky (which, if they happen to pass overhead, will appear as straight lines). But if the circles reach a peak altitude of only, say, 30°, they’re going to look like arcs to the naked eye."

A straight line turned into an arc to the naked eye, because of the 'celestial sphere'.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 08:05:28 PM
I can see how a celestial path can turn into a curve around the observer due to EA. As the points of path gets further from the observer it also drops in altitude. Consider a simplified straight line somewhere above and near the observer:

(https://i.imgur.com/3aO3Y8F.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/uqD2cUe.png)

If you add another line on the other side of the observer, and if the observer lays on the floor and looks "up" then the observer's 180 degrees of vision would see two oppositely arcing curves. This is how paths can seem to be convex or concave depending on their position around the observer.
So a few unlabeled diagrams that you claim you hypothesis explains is your explanations. Where are there any azimuth/elevations?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Look at a distant streetlight and spin around. Do you see it curving? If you tilt your head 20 degrees and spin around, do you see it curving?
No

So then you are conceding that this doesn't work with straight line geometry. I see.
I did nothing of the sort. I simple said that your spinning around near a streetlight is meaningless.

But the whole point of all of this is that Pennstate's 2.13 Sky Dome and Projections is based on the Globe with a distant sun.
Your being unable to understand that is not an argument against astronomy based on almost straight line light.
Neither is my inability to explain it in a way that you can understand it - that might be my failing, nothing else.

Maybe you should discuss this with an astronomer.

But, whatever the case, being able to hypothesise an explanation then fit an equation to it is not science and especially nothing approaching my understanding of zeticism,.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 08:26:20 PM
It doesn't have to be a straight line, but it can be. The Milky Way is supposed to be a straight line which we are viewing from the side, and astronomers say that it curves on the celestial sphere:

http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way

 "The Milky Way appears straightest when it is most directly overhead. Astronomy senior editor Rich Talcott points out, “The plane of the Milky Way projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere (as does the ecliptic, which we are also in). So both the Milky Way and the ecliptic appear as large circles in the sky (which, if they happen to pass overhead, will appear as straight lines). But if the circles reach a peak altitude of only, say, 30°, they’re going to look like arcs to the naked eye."

A straight line turned into an arc to the naked eye, because of the 'celestial sphere'.

Quote
Since the Milky Way is a flat disk, it should appear as a straight line across the sky.
However, in photos such as on pages 50–51 of the April issue, it is a curved arc. Why? by Russ Williams St. Charles, Missouri
(http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way)
When viewed edge-on, such as from our solar system’s position within the galaxy, the disk of the Milky Way does indeed appear as a straight line across the sky. The arc you reference in many photographs is an artifact arising from the way these images are processed afterward by the photographer.

You simply cannot see the entire sky at once, nor can you photograph it in one shot with a standard lens. Most full-sky photographs, including the one you note, are panoramas made up of several images stitched together. Each individual image captures only a portion of the sky (and landscape), and in each single shot, the Milky Way does appear straight. But when these images are stitched together, the photographer must introduce distortion to turn them into a single square or rectangular photo. This is because the final photo is a flat projection of a curved sphere, which introduces distortion that ultimately makes the Milky Way appear curved in order to make the horizon appear flat.

Alternatively, some images are taken with a fisheye lens, which itself produces distortion in order to image an extremely wide field in one shot.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is one caveat: The Milky Way appears straightest when it is most directly overhead. Astronomy senior editor Rich Talcott points out, “The plane of the Milky Way projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere (as does the ecliptic, which we are also in). So both the Milky Way and the ecliptic appear as large circles in the sky (which, if they happen to pass overhead, will appear as straight lines). But if the circles reach a peak altitude of only, say, 30°, they’re going to look like arcs to the naked eye.”
In photos the exaggerated curve is simply "because the final photo is a flat projection of a curved sphere".

But this projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere looking curved is the same as a great circle on the Globe looking curved when off-centre.

Why is any of this a issue?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 08:42:24 PM
It doesn't say "in a photo". It says "to the naked eye". A straight line (the milky way) turned into an arc to the naked eye because it was projected into the celestial sphere.

The mechanism of Astronomical Refraction would push bodies up at the horizon by half a degree, not suck them down. It is said that the RE Sun is already below the horizon when it is seen to touch it. A 'constant' light bending effect exists in your model and does not help to explain this.

I don't really see how all of this can be explained. You are telling us to talk to an astronomer for answers because you have none.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 16, 2019, 09:43:14 PM
Spin and deflect, rinse and repeat

Your best evidence is partially quoting an RE source and hoping people dont read it.  ::)

3rd or 4th thread in a week that demonstrates this and your ability to avoid direct questions.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2019, 09:59:13 PM
It doesn't say "in a photo". It says "to the naked eye". A straight line (the milky way) turned into an arc to the naked eye because it was projected into the celestial sphere.
Look at this in even title of your own reference, "However, in photos such as on pages 50–51 of the April issue, it is a curved arc. Why?"

So, it does write about photos - this bit:
Quote
Since the Milky Way is a flat disk, it should appear as a straight line across the sky.
However, in photos such as on pages 50–51 of the April issue, it is a curved arc. Why? by Russ Williams St. Charles, Missouri
(http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way)
When viewed edge-on, such as from our solar system’s position within the galaxy, the disk of the Milky Way does indeed appear as a straight line across the sky. The arc you reference in many photographs is an artifact arising from the way these images are processed afterward by the photographer.

You simply cannot see the entire sky at once, nor can you photograph it in one shot with a standard lens. Most full-sky photographs, including the one you note, are panoramas made up of several images stitched together. Each individual image captures only a portion of the sky (and landscape), and in each single shot, the Milky Way does appear straight. But when these images are stitched together, the photographer must introduce distortion to turn them into a single square or rectangular photo. This is because the final photo is a flat projection of a curved sphere, which introduces distortion that ultimately makes the Milky Way appear curved in order to make the horizon appear flat.
Even that says, "You simply cannot see the entire sky at once, nor can you photograph it in one shot with a standard lens."

And then it goes on to this about naked-eye observations:
Quote
Since the Milky Way is a flat disk, it should appear as a straight line across the sky. Why? by Russ Williams St. Charles, Missouri (http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is one caveat: The Milky Way appears straightest when it is most directly overhead. Astronomy senior editor Rich Talcott points out, “The plane of the Milky Way projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere (as does the ecliptic, which we are also in). So both the Milky Way and the ecliptic appear as large circles in the sky (which, if they happen to pass overhead, will appear as straight lines). But if the circles reach a peak altitude of only, say, 30°, they’re going to look like arcs to the naked eye.”
A "great circle" when looked at directly down on a sphere or up inside the Celestial Sphere will look straight but it will look curved from any other position.
This is because a "great circle" is a arc on the sphere or on the celestial sphere. For example all meridians of longitude are great circles but only the one at 0° looks straight:
(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/sungrid-0.gif)

<< I'll omit your irrelevant references to Astronomical refraction >>

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't really see how all of this can be explained. You are telling us to talk to an astronomer for answers.
Your inability to "see how all of this can be explained" is really is evidence that it is not correct.
If you were not so convinced that you FE theory with its EAT was the answer to everything it might be different.
In other words, you do not want it explainable on a spherical Earth and I find that quite understandable.

I, on the other hand, cannot understand why you find it this problem! That is why is said "talk to an astronomer" maybe some astronomers can explain it in some better way.

Here are some more references to viewing and photographing the Milky Way:
Ask an Astronomer: Which hemisphere has the best view of the Milky Way? (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/93-the-universe/the-milky-way/general-questions/503-which-hemisphere-has-the-best-view-of-the-milky-way-beginner)
Ask Ethan #19: Why does the Milky Way look curved? (https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2014/01/10/ask-ethan-19-why-does-the-milky-way-look-curved)
PennState: The Appearance of the Milky Way in the Night Sky (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p2.html)



Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2019, 11:50:44 PM
I said nothing about cameras. Why are you linking me to explanations about how cameras can cause curving?

If you see the link I did give you the article is about how camera can cause curving and then the article ends with the statement from the astronomer that you can also see it with the naked eye.

The naked eye can see 180 degrees of space. If you lay down or look up you can even see the entire sky at once.

Quote
A "great circle" when looked at directly down on a sphere or up inside the Celestial Sphere will look straight but it will look curved from any other position.

Now you seem to be claiming that there is a celestial sphere and when we are looking at a 'great circle arc' from another position other than overhead that straight lines look curved.

There is no mechanism for straight lines to appear curved. There is no reason for the lines in the sun chart or any other example to curve like they do in straight line euclidean space.

This celestial sphere mechanism is pure nonsense which shows rather clearly that the Round Earth Theory is false.

Your actions of admitting that if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts we saw, and then you finally telling us to talk to an astronomer about this, ends this debate in my eyes, and is a good concession of defeat as any.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 16, 2019, 11:55:37 PM
It doesn't say "in a photo". It says "to the naked eye". A straight line (the milky way) turned into an arc to the naked eye because it was projected into the celestial sphere.

The mechanism of Astronomical Refraction would push bodies up at the horizon by half a degree, not suck them down. It is said that the RE Sun is already below the horizon when it is seen to touch it. A 'constant' light bending effect exists in your model and does not help to explain this.

I don't really see how all of this can be explained. You are telling us to talk to an astronomer for answers because you have none.

That appears to be your failure to visualize 3D geometry.

I can explain the principle with a simple experiment you can do in your own living room with no equipment whatsoever.

Lean back against a wall at an angle of let’s say 10 degrees (it doesn’t really matter).  Turn your head 90 to the left and you are looking at a wall at head height.  Look straight ahead and you are looking at the ceiling.  Turn your head 90 to right and you are looking at another wall, again at head height.  You could also take take note of where you are looking with your head turned 45 degrees each way.

Now straighten up so you are looking straight ahead.  What imaginary line would you need to draw across your current field of view to intersect the points you were just looking at?  A straight line or a curve?

This is all the great circle lines on the celestial sphere are.  It’s what the path of the sun in the sky does, it’s how the Milky Way can look like an arc and it’s why the moon illusion is called an illusion.  They only appear a bit odd to us because we’re so used to using the ground as a reference point.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 17, 2019, 12:47:16 AM

Now you seem to be claiming that there is a celestial sphere and when we are looking at a 'great circle arc' from another position other than overhead that straight lines look curved.

There is no mechanism for straight lines to appear curved. There is no reason for the lines in the sun chart or any other example to curve like they do in straight line euclidean space.

This celestial sphere mechanism is pure nonsense which shows rather clearly that the Round Earth Theory is false.

Your actions of admitting that if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts we saw, and then you finally telling us to talk to an astronomer about this, ends this debate in my eyes, and is a good concession of defeat as any.

The debate ended when you tried to partially quote an RE source, which is pretty much the content of your FE wikis.

Unsubstantiated word salad and a poor grasp of math also killed off your arguments long ago.

Start answering questions instead of ignoring them and making laughable threats  :-*
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 02:27:32 AM
It seems that you should keep reading.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
It seems you should come up with a coherent model before suggesting others keep reading.

The moon tilt illusion is an illusion which is a result of converting from 2 angular dimensions to 2 Cartesian dimensions.
It has nothing at all to do with EA.
The same can be observed on a much smaller scale and you can also verify it by using a small ball, holding it out at arm's length towards the moon and noting how similar they appear.

Your celestial sphere claim seems to just be repeating the same illusion.

EA directly contradicts claimed evidence for Earth being flat, such as the false claim of the horizon always rising to eye level, and your claim of being able to see so far along the water.
It is incoherent with the rest of FE.

And more importantly, it is entirely wishy-washy nonsense with no quantitative use.

You have provided an equation, with some unknown constant.
How was this equation obtained? What is it based upon?
Can you use it to tell us how far away the moon is, or tell us where the moon should appear at any given time?

If not, RE still has FE beat, as RE has a working model which can be used to make quantitative predictions and quantitatively explain how the direction to the moon varies, while FE just has idle speculation.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 17, 2019, 04:12:00 AM
I said nothing about cameras. Why are you linking me to explanations about how cameras can cause curving?
The article you referenced was referring to was mainly about photographs - look at the title.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

If you see the link I did give you the article is about how camera can cause curving and then the article ends with the statement from the astronomer that you can also see it with the naked eye.

The naked eye can see 180 degrees of space. If you lay down or look up you can even see the entire sky at once.
Maybe, but it is really quite irrelevant.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
A "great circle" when looked at directly down on a sphere or up inside the Celestial Sphere will look straight but it will look curved from any other position.

Now you seem to be claiming that there is a celestial sphere and when we are looking at a 'great circle arc' from another position other than overhead that straight lines look curved.
I've never doubted a "celestial sphere" but it's not a "physical sphere" it's just an artiface to help us visualise the apparent movement of the stars etc.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no mechanism for straight lines to appear curved.
But the lines are not "straight lines" but are great circles on the celestial sphere

Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no reason for the lines in the sun chart or any other example to curve like they do in straight line euclidean space.
But there is a mechanism for an arc to appear straight or curved depending in where it is viewed from.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
This celestial sphere mechanism is pure nonsense which shows rather clearly that the Round Earth Theory is false.
So you say but you got some 2600 years of astronomers to contend with.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Your actions of admitting that if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts we saw.
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

Surely you can visualise the sun's path from a diagram like the one below:
Quote
2.13 Sky Dome and Projections (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534)
Sun Charts: Projections of Solar Events and Shadowing from the Sky Dome

What are Sun Charts?

If we want to visually convert our observations of the sky-dome onto a two-dimensional medium, we can either use an orthographic projection or a spherical projection on a polar chart. These projections are useful for calculating established times of solar availability or shadowing for a given point of solar collection.

The Sun Path describes the arc of the sun across the sky in relation to an earth-bound observer at a given latitude and time.

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme810/files/images/Lesson_02/2.14.png)
Figure 2.14: We display the path of the Sun across two days for the Northern Hemisphere. One day in
summer and one in winter, where the trail of the beam has been projected onto the sky dome using
angular coordinates of solar azimuth and solar altitude.

Credit: Jeffrey R. S. Brownson
When viewed from an observer in the centre of that diagram the sun appears to trace a circular arc on the "celestial sphere".
If you could imagine tracing how it would look from the inside you should be able to see how that flat Sun's path diagram comes about.

And when you do that you get this sort of chart:
Quote
2.13 Sky Dome and Projections (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534)

Polar Projection: takes the sky dome and projects altitude and azimuth values down onto a circular plane. However, in the polar projection, the arc for December 21 is at the top while the arc for June 21 is at the bottom. This happens because we are effectively lying on the ground with our heads facing south, and holding that large piece of paper straight up to the sky.
(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme810/files/images/Lesson_02/2.17.png)
Though I'm more used to seeing these with North up and South down.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 17, 2019, 09:13:09 AM
Quote
This celestial sphere mechanism is pure nonsense which shows rather clearly that the Round Earth Theory is false.

I'm not sure what is blocking your ability to understand this celestial sphere concept Tom but something clearly is. Let me put this to you:

Think of an ordinary camera tripod. The tripod head is a simple form of what we call an alt(itude)/az(imuth) mount OK. Let's set the tripod so that it is levelled in such a way  that the vertical central axis of the tripod points directly to the observers zenith. If the altitude is set to zero degrees, the horizontal (azimuth) rotation of the tripod will follow the line of the horizon.  The altitude axis can be adjusted from 0 degrees (horizon) to 90 degrees (directly overhead = zenith)  Agreed?

Now lets tilt the mount so that the vertical central axis is pointing to not the zenith but to the north celestial pole. We will assume for this that the observer is located in the northern hemisphere.  We have just turned our alt/azimuth mount into an equatorial mount. If the camera/telescope of whatever is mounted on the tripod was pointing to the south point on the horizon before we tilted it, that telescope or camera will now be pointing to the celestial equator, on the meridian due south.  If we now rotate the telescope 90 degrees to the left, the telescope will be pointing towards the east.

If we now rotate the telescope westward in its azimuth direction only, the mount will follow the path of a star located on the celestial equator without needing to change its 'altitude' setting. We only need to change the altitude setting on the mount if we want to follow another star which is further north or south of the first star.

The tripod head is marked on its altitude axis from 0 to 90 degrees which is one quarter of a circle. So if we could move the head from the north point, through the zenith and onwards through to the south point, the tripod head would have moved through 180 degrees or half a circle.  The azimuth axis is marked from 0 to 360 degrees which of course is a full circle.

So if we rotate that half a circle of north/zenith/south through 360 degrees, we do trace out effectively a hemisphere do we not? A hemisphere is half a sphere and since we are talking about celestial objects in the sky we get the celestial sphere. In altaz mode the 'hemisphere' is the visible sky. Of course astronomers use the term sphere purely as a referencing term. We do not mean there is a physical, real sphere or dome up there above our heads.  That would be naïve and daft.

Surely that's not too difficult for you to visualise it is Tom?  Of course to follow a star with an alt/azimuth mount we would need to move the telescope minute by minute in both altitude and azimuth since the altitude and the azimuth of the star are constantly changing. In azimuth due to the Earths rotation and in altitude due to the Earths polar axis tilt. It is really very simple! That fig 2.14 that someone has posted previously illustrates what is happening perfectly.  The observer would be located at the NS/WE lines intersection.

Why do you always feel the need to explain things in a much more complicated way than is necessary?  One possible reason is that you are trying to make something that works very easily for a sphere tilted to one side by 23.5 degrees work for your belief in a flat Earth.  You are trying to make something work which can't.  This whole concept is one good example I would suggest where 'RE Astronomy' doesn't just beat FE but it totally owns it!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 17, 2019, 02:18:45 PM
This celestial sphere mechanism is pure nonsense which shows rather clearly that the Round Earth Theory is false.
The celestial sphere is not a mechanism.  It's not even a real sphere.  It's more of a metaphor for a handy way of using spherical coordinates to locate celestial objects when their distance is unknown or unimportant.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 17, 2019, 02:37:39 PM
Quote
The celestial sphere is not a mechanism.  It's not even a real sphere.  It's more of a metaphor for a handy way of using spherical coordinates to locate celestial objects when their distance is unknown or unimportant.

I for one concur completely with that..I just wanted to provide an easily reproducible example of how exactly that can be demonstrated.   In detail so Tom couldn't argue with it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2019, 02:48:44 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 17, 2019, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.

Have you been reading the same thread?

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2019, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.

Have you been reading the same thread?

Yep. We have learned in this thread that astronomers need to appeal to some sort of "celestial sphere" where straight lines make curves, in order to correlate observation with theory. A totally bogus field of science, willing to go to any lengths of imagination to prop up their ancient and non-working model.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 17, 2019, 03:12:50 PM
I don't know if this explains the curved sun path any better but here it is:

Quote from: Daniel V. Schroeder, Department of Physics, Weber State University
Understanding Astronomy: The Sun and the Seasons (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/SunAndSeasons.html)

The sun's path through the rest of the sky (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080922.html) is similarly farther north in June and farther south in December. In summary:
  • In late March and late September (at the "equinoxes"), the sun's path follows the celestial equator. It then rises directly east and sets directly west. The exact dates of the equinoxes vary from year to year, but are always near March 20 and September 22.

  • After the March equinox, the sun's path gradually drifts northward. By the June solstice (usually June 21), the sun rises considerably north of due east and sets considerably north of due west. For mid-northern observers, the noon sun is still toward the south, but much higher in the sky than at the equinoxes.

  • After the June solstice, the sun's path gradually drifts southward. By the September equinox, its path is again along the celestial equator. The southward drift then continues until the December solstice (usually December 21), when the sun rises considerably south of due east and sets considerably south of due west. For mid-northern observers, the noon sun is quite low in the southern sky (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071222.html). After the December solstice, the sun's path drifts northward again, returning to the celestial equator by the March equinox.
The illustration shows three of the sun's daily paths around the celestial sphere, again as seen by an observer at latitude 41° north. At the equinoxes, exactly half of the sun's circular path lies above the horizon. But notice that in June, considerably more than half of the circle is above the horizon, while in December, much less than half the circle is visible. This is why, if you live in the north, you have more hours of daylight in June (during your summer) than in December (during your winter).
      (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/SunOnCelestialSphere.png)
The sun appears to move along with the celestial sphere on any given day, but follows different circles at different times of the year: most northerly at the June solstice and most southerly at the December solstice. At the equinoxes, the sun's path follows the celestial equator.
Attributed to: Daniel V. Schroeder, Department of Physics, Weber State University (https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/default.html#copyright)
From this it seems simple enough to see how these sun path diagrams are just projections of those paths onto the horizontal plane, as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/b9p4wtenaaqiyqa/Penn%20State%20Sun%20Path%2021.Jun.2019.jpg?dl=1)
Penn State Sun Path for June Solstice, 21.Jun.2019

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/psn8hllpzk7g05j/Penn%20State%20Sun%20Path%2023.Sep.2019.jpg?dl=1)
Penn State Sun Path for September Equinox 21.Dec.2019

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qdy6488u3eka9cs/Penn%20State%20Sun%20Path%2021.Dec.2019.jpg?dl=1)
Penn State Sun Path for December Solstice, 21.Dec.2019

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 17, 2019, 03:18:53 PM
Yep. We have learned in this thread that astronomers need to appeal to some sort of appeal to some sort of "celestial sphere".
They do not "appeal to some sort of 'celestial sphere' "!

The "celestial sphere" has been used but astronomers for over 2600 years as an aid to visualising the positions of stars, etc.

And I don't know where these straight lines come from. The path of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars certainly appears to circle above the Earth.

Even on your flat Earth, these don't move in straight lines.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 17, 2019, 03:21:00 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.
Rubbish! What has spinning around a streetlight got to do with anything other than to make the perpetrator look stupid!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 17, 2019, 03:39:38 PM
Quote
A totally bogus field of science, willing to go to any lengths of imagination to prop up their ancient and non-working model.

Isn't that a word perfect description of your own FE theory belief Tom? You seem to be getting confused now between RE and FE!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 17, 2019, 03:41:41 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.

Have you been reading the same thread?

Yep. We have learned in this thread that astronomers need to appeal to some sort of "celestial sphere" where straight lines make curves, in order to correlate observation with theory. A totally bogus field of science, willing to go to any lengths of imagination to prop up their ancient and non-working model.

Really I learned that you too, cannot provide a single FE hypothesis, the basis of your arguments is I dont understand therefore it's wrong, when you slip up and make a definite statement, you spin away, change topic or throw out baseless threats, but never answer a question, only perpetually ask them.

Over a number of topics we see the holes in your, poorly put together wiki, simply incorrect citations and cherry picked, deliberate partial quotes of RE, passed off as FE.

Incorrect maths, made up maths and a complete inability to run numbers, make predictions or provide observation or confirmation.

Multiple claims that a natural science is pseudo science, without any credible evidence to back it up.

Contrarian stances can only get you so far, you managed it for over a decade, but its played out.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 17, 2019, 08:30:09 PM
Quote from: rabinoz
There was no admission in dismissing you claim about "if you spin in a  circle that distant lights do not curve like in the sun charts".
It is quite irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry. This shows that your ancient model of the world, founded on straight line geometry, is false. You have failed to explain this, except by now bringing in a 'sky dome' that the sun is projected upon and where straight lines become curved.

Have you been reading the same thread?

Yep. We have learned in this thread that astronomers need to appeal to some sort of "celestial sphere" where straight lines make curves, in order to correlate observation with theory. A totally bogus field of science, willing to go to any lengths of imagination to prop up their ancient and non-working model.

No they do not.  That is your imagination trying to make it more complicated than it is. If you allowed yourself to actually try to understand, it would be become painfully obvious.

The “celestial sphere” is just a convenient way of mapping the positions of stars on a spherical coordinate system with us in the middle.

A flat earth (with North Star always above the North Pole) would only have a celestial hemisphere” (or dome).  We have literally  mapped twice as much sky as should ever be visible on your model.  That’s a really big problem you choose to ignore, so you talk nonsense about straight lines turning into curves.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2019, 08:46:54 PM
You guys have already conceded that if you look at a distant streetlight and spin around that the streetlight will not curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head.

The Sun even curves on the Equinox when the axis of the Earth is supposed to be at a right angle to the Sun.

Rabinoz is now showing us that the Sun is projected onto a "sky dome" and that we should consider this alternative explanation to straight line euclidean geometry.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Stash on December 17, 2019, 09:19:01 PM
You guys have already conceded that if you look at a distant streetlight and spin around that the streetlight will not curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head.

Actually, you have conceded that you never intended to back up EA. You refuse to answer how it works, how it predicts observations of any sort. You can try and shit all over astronomy all you want, but it's pointless as you can't even tell where, when or how a sunset/sunrise occurs. Why is that? And why won't you explain EA? How does that EA formula actually work?

The Sun even curves on the Equinox when the axis of the Earth is supposed to be at a right angle to the Sun.

How does the sun curve near due East to West on equinox? Where is that coming from?

Rabinoz is now showing us that the Sun is projected into a "sky dome" and that we should consider this alternative explanation to the straight line euclidean geometry.

So now you're a 'domer'? Interesting and duly noted.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 17, 2019, 10:50:34 PM
You guys have already conceded that if you look at a distant streetlight and spin around that the streetlight will not curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head.
I/we conceded nothing.
I claimed that you have never shown why spinning "around a streetlight" like a whirling dervish should "curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head".

Draw some diagrams to show what you should see.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Sun even curves on the Equinox when the axis of the Earth is supposed to be at a right angle to the Sun.
Exactly as it should!
To an observer on earth the Sun always appears to move in the arc of a circle:
As on this Sun path diagram for close to here on Sep 23rd, the last equinox:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/w12nbg5ty4ze986/Sun%20Path%20on%20Sep%2023%202019%20Equinox%20at%2027.5%C2%B0S%20150%C2%B0E.jpg?dl=1)
Sun Path on Sep 23 2019 Equinox at 27.5°S 150°E

Why do you find that so hard to grasp? That's been quite well understood for centuries.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Rabinoz is now showing us that the Sun is projected into a "sky dome" the Celestial Sphere and that we should consider this alternative explanation to the straight line euclidean geometry.
Essentially all that I posted in The Bishop Challenge « Reply #110 on: Today at 09:12:50 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84214.msg2224012#msg2224012) was from similar sources to yours.

But it seems that you claim that you know better that every astronomer from the ancient Greek Thales, back around 600 BC and a flat-Earther to the present day.

And that includes the Geocentrists, Ptolemy, the Venerable Bede, Omar Khayyam, Johannes de Sacrobosco, Tycho Brahe and all the better know more recent ones.

The Dunning-Ktuger's strong in this one! (I can ridicule too Tom!)

Stop being ridiculous! It is not any alternative geometry "to the straight line euclidean geometry"! It is exactly as it should be in "Euclidean geometry".

In case you hadn't heard Euclidean geometry in 3 dimensions does include circles, arcs of circles and spheres.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 17, 2019, 11:40:29 PM
It is quite relevant. You have admitted that this cannot be explained using straight line geometry.
Where has anyone admitted that?
What I have seen is people explain trying to represent angular coordinates in Cartesian coordinates producing distortions.

You guys have already conceded that if you look at a distant streetlight and spin around that the streetlight will not curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head.
Are you spinning around your tilted head? Or still just spinning around?
Also, I am yet to see anyone concede that.

The Sun even curves on the Equinox when the axis of the Earth is supposed to be at a right angle to the Sun.
That all depends on how you represent the path.
But it appears in the location expected based upon "straight line geometry" and the rotating round Earth.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 18, 2019, 02:33:54 AM
Addressing your comment about a projected Sun...

Quote
Rabinoz is now showing us that the Sun is projected onto a "sky dome"

Exactly where from and how would you be proposing the Sun is being projected?   Every projection needs a source. And what would be powering that source for the last 4.6 billion years?  I've heard of long life batteries but that takes the concept to a whole new level!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 18, 2019, 03:19:12 AM
You guys have already conceded that if you look at a distant streetlight and spin around that the streetlight will not curve like the Sun in the sun diagrams, no matter if you tilt your head.

Because you haven’t changed your axis of rotation!  You are just looking up a bit!

You made the classic flat earther mistake of proposing an “experiment” that doesn’t recreate the effect you are trying to “debunk” and then declaring victory.

I tried to explain this earlier with a slightly different example, which you of course ignored.  Fine, I’ll explain how to fix your broken example instead-

Get your friends to tie you to pole, tilt the pole and spin that.  Your distant street lamp will now curve across your field of view, just like the sun does. 

Angle the pole towards or away from the street lamp to simulate the solstices and sideways to simulate the equinoxes. 

See how easy these things are if you actually think them through?

Quote
The Sun even curves on the Equinox when the axis of the Earth is supposed to be at a right angle to the Sun.

Very slightly.  The Earth is still traveling through its orbit.  We call whole days equinoxes, but the axis is only actually lined up exactly for a moment.  That moment of exact alignment could of course happen at night, depending where on the earth you are.

Quote
Rabinoz is now showing us that the Sun is projected onto a "sky dome" and that we should consider this alternative explanation to straight line euclidean geometry.

No, he is not!  You are twisting peoples words to suit your agenda instead of trying to understand them.  Either that or you already understand and are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Unlike some flat earth models, there is no literal sky dome, it’s just the half of the celestial sphere visible at a given location and time.  And for the bazillionth time, there is no literal celestial sphere!  It’s a way of expressing azimuth and altitude angles, nothing more.

And you are the only person talking about non Euclidean geometry.  Stop this total straw man argument and start debating like a grown up.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 18, 2019, 03:39:00 AM
Quote
Unlike some flat earth models, there is no literal sky dome, it’s just the half of the celestial sphere visible at a given location and time.  And for the bazillionth time, there is no literal celestial sphere!  It’s a way of expressing azimuth and altitude angles, nothing more.

Isn't that exactly what I have described (twice now I believe) yet Tom has ignored that completely. It's a tactic that Tom uses regularly.  If you can't challenge it, ignore it. It is not really a difficult concept to grasp is it?

Quote
No, he is not!  You are twisting peoples words to suit your agenda instead of trying to understand them.  Either that or you already understand and are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Probably a bit of both of those.  Some people just like arguing with others as a means of keeping a discussion going.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2019, 05:17:24 AM
If you were strapped to a tilted pole, leaning backwards, looking slightly upwards, and if your body was rotating along the axis of this tilted pole, you might see a convex arc to the distant streetlight as your body rotates and your face arcs from one horizon to the next, sure.

However, we saw that the Sun arcs convexly all throughout the year. At Equinox the pole is at a right angle to the distant light source, and "past the moment of Equinox" the observer is now tilted downwards towards the light source.

If the pole is now tilted downwards towards the light source we should see an opposite effect.

How, then, do you reconcile that the Sun charts show convex arcs for positions in the North, and do not change to concave paths throughout the year? Using the pole example we should be seeing the entire range of tilts with the observer tilted away from and towards the Sun.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 18, 2019, 05:28:21 AM
Quote
If you were strapped to a pole, tilted, looking slightly upwards, and if your body was rotating along the axis of this pole, you might see an arc to the distant streetlight as your body rotates and your face arcs from one horizon to the next, sure.

I can't help an image forming in my minds eye of a hog roast where the poor old hog is slowly being rotated around the roasting pole that it has been strapped to.  The last thing it ever sees is some darn streetlight in the distance rotating in a small circle.  I guess the last think on hogs mind would be what the streetlights in the distance are doing!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 18, 2019, 06:14:52 AM
If you were strapped to a tilted pole, leaning backwards, looking slightly upwards, and if your body was rotating along the axis of this tilted pole, you might see a convex arc to the distant streetlight as your body rotates and your face arcs from one horizon to the next, sure.

However, we saw that the Sun arcs convexly all throughout the year. At Equinox the pole is at a right angle to the distant light source, and "past the moment of Equinox" the observer is now tilted downwards towards the light source.

If the pole is now tilted downwards towards the light source we should see an opposite effect.

How, then, do you reconcile that the Sun charts show convex arcs for positions in the North, and do not change to concave paths throughout the year? Using the pole example we should be seeing the entire range of tilts with the observer tilted away from and towards the Sun.

Pole was an example to try and get you to start visualising, key thing to remember when comparing the street light and pole example to the real life example, is that there is not a planet between you and the street light.

You are deliberately introducing misunderstanding, or did not read your own links or indeed wiki.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2019, 06:47:05 AM
The pole example was a smart analogy to help us understand this, and is a simple enough concept which anyone should be able to visualize.

While I understand that your inclination is to 'explain this, somehow', to me it just provides a piece of evidence that the theory is incorrect.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 18, 2019, 06:49:02 AM
If you were strapped to a tilted pole, leaning backwards, looking slightly upwards, and if your body was rotating along the axis of this tilted pole, you might see a convex arc to the distant streetlight as your body rotates and your face arcs from one horizon to the next, sure.

However, we saw that the Sun arcs convexly all throughout the year. At Equinox the pole is at a right angle to the distant light source, and "past the moment of Equinox" the observer is now tilted downwards towards the light source.

If the pole is now tilted downwards towards the light source we should see an opposite effect.

How, then, do you reconcile that the Sun charts show convex arcs for positions in the North, and do not change to concave paths throughout the year? Using the pole example we should be seeing the entire range of tilts with the observer tilted away from and towards the Sun.

So now you want to turn your simple street lamp example into a working model of the solar system?

Well, being tied to a pole and looking straight ahead would be roughly equivalent to being on the equator and looking straight up.  If you want to take it further, you need a way to account for latitude as well.  Because we are on various points of a sphere which is tilted relative to the sun.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 18, 2019, 06:52:45 AM
The pole example was a smart analogy to help us understand this, and is a simple enough concept which anyone should be able to visualize.

While I understand that your inclination is to 'explain this, somehow', to me it just provides a piece of evidence that the theory is incorrect.

Haha!

Says the man who proposes an electromagnetic accelerator that bends light, somehow.

Oh, sweet irony.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2019, 06:54:52 AM
To account for latitude and tilt we can go back to the example of looking at a distant streetlight and spinning around, and then looking at a distant streetlight and tilting your head upwards and spinning around. Did that action to anything to make the streetlight travel in curves?

If not, why should we believe that the tilt should have anything to do with it?

This should certainly be explainable under the geometry of your model.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on December 18, 2019, 06:58:30 AM
If you were strapped to a tilted pole, leaning backwards, looking slightly upwards, and if your body was rotating along the axis of this tilted pole, you might see a convex arc to the distant streetlight as your body rotates and your face arcs from one horizon to the next, sure.

However, we saw that the Sun arcs convexly all throughout the year. At Equinox the pole is at a right angle to the distant light source, and "past the moment of Equinox" the observer is now tilted downwards towards the light source.

If the pole is now tilted downwards towards the light source we should see an opposite effect.

How, then, do you reconcile that the Sun charts show convex arcs for positions in the North, and do not change to concave paths throughout the year? Using the pole example we should be seeing the entire range of tilts with the observer tilted away from and towards the Sun.

Because the observer on a pole is still arching away from the light.
It doesnt magically flip inverted when veiwed from the opposite side.
The tilt affects how quickly the the sun will disappear from field of view.
Try it out.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 18, 2019, 07:35:37 AM
To account for latitude and tilt we can go back to the example of looking at a distant streetlight and spinning around, and then looking at a distant streetlight and tilting your head upwards and spinning around. Did that action to anything to make the streetlight travel in curves?

If not, why should we believe that the tilt should have anything to do with it?

This should certainly be explainable under the geometry of your model.

What?

Why go back to your original example, when we know it’s flawed?

You need to account for BOTH the axis of rotation AND the latitude.  If you just ignore one or the other, you are not demonstrating the same effect, are you?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2019, 08:17:41 AM
To account for latitude and tilt we can go back to the example of looking at a distant streetlight and spinning around, and then looking at a distant streetlight and tilting your head upwards and spinning around. Did that action to anything to make the streetlight travel in curves?

If not, why should we believe that the tilt should have anything to do with it?

This should certainly be explainable under the geometry of your model.

What?

Why go back to your original example, when we know it’s flawed?

You need to account for BOTH the axis of rotation AND the latitude.  If you just ignore one or the other, you are not demonstrating the same effect, are you?

You are claiming that tilting would create an opposite curving effect of some kind which compensates for the concave curves of the sun, when we can see from the example of spinning with your head tilted upwards that upwards tilting would have no such effect on the scene.

What reason is there to believe that rotating on a tilted axis and tilting your head would create something new?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 18, 2019, 09:04:29 AM
To account for latitude and tilt we can go back to the example of looking at a distant streetlight and spinning around, and then looking at a distant streetlight and tilting your head upwards and spinning around. Did that action to anything to make the streetlight travel in curves?

If not, why should we believe that the tilt should have anything to do with it?

This should certainly be explainable under the geometry of your model.

What?

Why go back to your original example, when we know it’s flawed?

You need to account for BOTH the axis of rotation AND the latitude.  If you just ignore one or the other, you are not demonstrating the same effect, are you?

You are claiming that tilting would create an opposite curving effect of some kind which compensates for the concave curves of the sun, when we can see from the example of spinning with your head tilted upwards that upwards tilting would have no such effect on the scene.

What reason is there to believe that rotating on a tilted axis and tilting your head would create something new?

Actually all I’m really doing is pointing out how your example was flawed and suggesting what parameters you need to account for to make a meaningful comparison.

Maybe you should try it and find out?

Although being spit roasted on the street by your friends (not that kind of spit roasted) probably isn’t very practical.  Better to get some 3D modeling software and see if you can recreate the sun’s path for a particular location and time of year.

If the heliocentric model is as fundamentally broken as you say, it would be a piece of piss to demonstrate this to the world in a very simple way that can be reproduced by anyone. 

Finish the argument once and for all, become a hero to all flat earthers and claim your Nobel prize for putting science on the right path.

If I was in your position and I really believed it, I’d stop arguing in circles and put in a couple of days work to learn some software, run a simple animation and settle it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 18, 2019, 09:17:19 AM
You forgot that as someone who promotes 'free thinking' Tom will say it is up to you to do all that and present your findings.  Have you ever known Tom to get up off his posterior and do anything himself to back up his claims?  That is left for everyone else to do.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 18, 2019, 01:19:55 PM
However, we saw that the Sun arcs convexly all throughout the year.
Where?

If you use an equatorial mount telescope to track the sun you observe that over the course of a day to track the sun you do nothing more than rotate about the axis of the telescope.

These arcs you are complaining about are entirely due to how you are projecting the real angular coordinates you see in onto a planar surface.

I also think it would be better to describe them as clockwise or counterclockwise instead of convex or concave, but I will use your terminology for now where if the centre of the arc is above the centre of the diagram then it is convex and otherwise it is concave, just noting that it wont work for the poles.

But here is one near the equator:
(https://i.imgur.com/T47gAx4.png)
Notice how it does change which direction it arcs?

And before you say that is just for the equator, don't worry, if you are close enough to the equator, it still does it:
(https://i.imgur.com/0o5q2oW.png)
That is for 9 degrees north.

It is only when you go above roughly 13 degrees north that it changes.

See, you aren't just having the pole tilt, you are also tilting your head, which makes it more complex.
And no, that tilt of your head is not necessarily slight.

How, then, do you reconcile that the Sun charts show convex arcs for positions in the North, and do not change to concave paths throughout the year?
Why would I need to reconcile such a falsehood?
As demonstrated, that isn't the case at all.

Using the pole example we should be seeing the entire range of tilts with the observer tilted away from and towards the Sun.
No, we shouldn't.
That would only be the case if the pole rotated through 180 degrees instead of tilting forwards or backwards by 26 degrees.
This is especially important as if you go outside the tropics, the observer will not switch between being tilted "towards" or "away" from the sun, in the sense that at mid day the sun will always be either north or south, unlike within the tropics where it switches.

Did that action to anything to make the streetlight travel in curves?
Again, curves in what sense?
Do you mean in the polar projections provided? Yes, it will.

The amount you tilt your head changes it, the axis you are rotating around changes it.

You are relying upon thought experiments where you are just making up the results to pretend there is a problem.

While it is quite easy to actually analyse it and show that it must produce a curve.
The example of rotating around without being tilted correspond to the equinox.
Note that no matter how you tilt your head up or down (to adjust for latitude) when you are facing 90 degrees away from the street light the sun will appear directly left or right, corresponding to due east or due west in the diagram.
Now focus on face on, if your head isn't titled then the light will align directly with your centre of vision, corresponding to the centre of the diagram. This produces a straight line across the diagram.
If your head is tilted upwards, corresponding to a southern latitude (as the diagram has south at the top), then the light will be below your centre of vision. This results in an arc that starts due east, curves to go below your FOV (i.e. to the north) and then curves back up to end up at west. i.e. this is a concave arc produced for southern latitudes.
If your head is tilted downwards, corresponding to a northern latitude, then the light will be above your centre of vision. This results in an arc that starts due east, curves to go above your FOV (i.e. to the south) and then curves back down to end up at west. i.e. this is a convex arc produced for northern latitudes.

So no, tilting your head does effect it, so that cannot be ignored.

As for saying we can't explain it, the very charts you are using to make your arguments are based upon the RE with "straight line geometry". The RE model you are attacking is predicting these paths.

Meanwhile, I am yet to see you explain any way to use the FE to actually predict where the sun is going to be.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2019, 02:18:26 PM
Explain for us how tilting of the earth would cause it. Are you aware that the earth can be tilted, yet your head can be pointed towards the horizon and looking directly at the sun above the horizon and its entire path face on?

(https://i.imgur.com/WToZo6Z.png)

I can't see how this would induce additional curvature you need to explain this, in order to make a concave curve into a convex one. The tilting of the earth is pretty immaterial if you can look directly at the sun and its path.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 18, 2019, 02:56:38 PM
Using your diagram as a reference, lets say the uppermost red dot is an observer in the northern hemisphere (lets say 50N), the centre red dot is an observer on the equator and the lower red dot is an observer in the southern hemisphere (say 50S)

The way you have drawn the lines tangential to the observer to represent the horizon line shows that the observer in the southern hemisphere would see the Sun to the south, passing through the south meridian line, the observer at the equator would see the Sun pass overhead and the observer in the southern hemisphere would see the Sun towards the north, passing through the north meridian. 

As you can see the observer in the northern hemisphere would see the solar north pole at the top of the Suns disk, the observer in the southern hemisphere would see the solar south pole at the top, effectlively 'upside down' relative to the observer in the northern hemisphere.

In this sense you diagram illustrates the RE configuration perfectly. That leads me to suspect this is not how you intended the diagram to be interpreted because that would mean you are conceding that RE is correct!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 18, 2019, 10:22:47 PM
I can't see how this would induce additional curvature you need to explain this, in order to make a concave curve into a convex one. The tilting of the earth is pretty immaterial if you can look directly at the sun and its path.
Of course you can't see it, because you chose to ignore it.
I just explained how you get that nice curved path, and have it switch between concave and convex.

How about you try to address that?
Which point do you disagree with?
Note: This is dealing with the equinox.
Do you agree that at 90 degrees, the street light/sun will appear directly right or left (i.e. due east or west) regardless of tilt? (which it should considering the axis that you are tilting on would be the same as the direction to the light.
Do you agree that when looking towards the street light (i.e. the axis for rotation is set to face the light), then without any tilt, the light will be at the centre of your FOV, while if you tilt up, the light will appear below centre and if you tilt down the light will appear above centre?
Do you then agree that connecting those 3 points will produce either a straight arc, a concave arc and a convex arc respective?
Do you then agree that the tilt will cause a concave/convex arc?

If you choose to look directly at the sun, then you are no longer using the same projection as you were before (which would be looking directly up away from the surface of the Earth) and instead the sun will remain centred on your FOV and not appear to move at all.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: mak3m on December 19, 2019, 02:58:44 AM
Explain for us how tilting of the earth would cause it. Are you aware that the earth can be tilted, yet your head can be pointed towards the horizon and looking directly at the sun above the horizon and its entire path face on?

(https://i.imgur.com/WToZo6Z.png)

I can't see how this would induce additional curvature you need to explain this, in order to make a concave curve into a convex one. The tilting of the earth is pretty immaterial if you can look directly at the sun and its path.

Google Translate


Heres something I said, which I will now pretend you said, but add it to something somebody else said, which when we scroll back we find it was something else I said, when I misquoted something somebody else said, framed it in a question that you kind of said, but didnt, but i deliberately misinterpreted anyway and misquote.

=

Flat Earth Tah dah


Its like debating a toddler, on skype, during a power cut.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on December 19, 2019, 03:32:41 AM
I was issuing a challenge to Rabinoz, and which he refused in the thread. I wonder why. Surely he can actually argue successfully in a debate on a single subject with his collection of copy-pasta.
I ignored your challenge when you post stupidity like "I'll rip you a new one!"

I might be able to do respond to your challenge if you did not simply refer everything to your TFES Wiki, which on investigation, contains nothing but unsupported hypotheses.

All I can find in your Wiki is:
Quote
Moon
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
With no evidence to back it up.
Quote
Moon Spherical
The Moon is thought to be spherical due to a slight rocking back and fourth over its monthly cycle called Lunar Liberation, where more than 50% of the lunar surface can be seen over time.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/ba/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif)
“ Simulated views of the Moon over one month, demonstrating librations in latitude and longitude.”
Quote
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/Moon-face.png/1199px-Moon-face.png)
<< etc >>
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.
There is evidence to back it up.

One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.

Then perform the math and voila!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 19, 2019, 04:00:58 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.

There is evidence to back it up.

One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.

Then perform the math and voila!
OK, you show me this "evidence to back it up".
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on December 19, 2019, 04:15:56 AM
There is evidence to back it up.
One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.
Then perform the math and voila!
That allows you to determine the angle of elevation of the moon.
To get any further you need far more information
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on December 19, 2019, 05:29:22 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.

There is evidence to back it up.

One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.

Then perform the math and voila!
OK, you show me this "evidence to back it up".
Are you unable to perform math?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 19, 2019, 06:32:51 AM
There is evidence to back it up.

One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.

Then perform the math and voila!
Would you care to show us an example of that math?  Also, are you assuming that the light from the moon is traveling in a straight line or did it curve?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 07:28:47 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
then you have the audacity to present your Electromagnetic Acceleration or paradigm of upwardly bending light which is nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

You have never shown that it possible for a material to have a refractive index profile that might cause such bending let alone what that material might be.

So, let's cut to the chase: What is the distance to the FE distance moon so that it can be compared to the value measured by parallax or radio, radar or laser echoes?

Now, read the OP again!
I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (approx)

I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.

I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
The basic "challenge" is
"I . . .  ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)".

Well, justify that claim in YOUR WIKI or admit that it is quite unfounded and change you Wiki accordingly.

There is evidence to back it up.

One need only find an object of known height, then position themselves in such a way so the moon is barely obstructed by the top of the object.

Then perform the math and voila!
OK, you show me this "evidence to back it up".
Are you unable to perform math?

Lackless fails at math.
The sohcahtoa means the angle is determinable.
Youre still missing the opposite andor the hypotnuse (3,000miles).
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 19, 2019, 01:56:57 PM
Are you unable to perform math?
Not at all but you have given me no data to apply my maths skills ;D to.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 19, 2019, 02:20:59 PM
As others have pointed out, I mistyped astronomy. Apologies. Never the less, you have failed to account for even one reason RE astronomy explains something better than FE astronomy. This, with the entire world and 1000s of years of round earth research on your side.

I can see why you'd resort to attacking an obvious typo; you have no other basis.

You make mention of FE astronomers. I know of many centres that specialise in astronomy but none of them are FE. Where are your FE astronomy centres located and what are the names of your leading FE astronomers. What would you consider to be the best most recent book, on FE astronomy?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 19, 2019, 02:28:33 PM
Mr. Davis made mention of FE astronomers. Have any of these FE astronomers published a method along with supporting calculations that give a definitive FE earth moon distance and moon diameter? This discussion was started as a challenge for Mr. Bishop to present his calculations, as he has not done so it would be interesting to read what the FE astronomers, MR. Davis makes mention of have produced on this subject. 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on December 19, 2019, 04:28:09 PM
Explain for us how tilting of the earth would cause it. Are you aware that the earth can be tilted, yet your head can be pointed towards the horizon and looking directly at the sun above the horizon and its entire path face on?

(https://i.imgur.com/WToZo6Z.png)

I can't see how this would induce additional curvature you need to explain this, in order to make a concave curve into a convex one. The tilting of the earth is pretty immaterial if you can look directly at the sun and its path.

What the hell are you talking about now?

Of course wherever the sun is in the sky, you can tilt your head to look at it.  What are you saying here?  That as long as you can see it, it doesn’t matter what path it takes?

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:

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

There’s just 4 parameters to play with- latitude, longitude, time of day and time of year.  That shows the sun’s position on a little scene you can spin around.  So now, perhaps you can give us a time, date and location where this simple program doesn’t match real world observations?  Or better still, get off your arse and provide a working flat earth version.  Or some calculations.  Or anything really that isn’t just a whinge that you don’t like it.

Incidentally, this isn’t a NASA model, it’s not a flat earth debunker’s model, it’s not an astronomy department model.  It’s from a guy who makes tools and blogs for people like architects and urban planners, who actually design things accounting for natural lighting.  An everyday real world practical example of needing to know where the sun is at any given location and time.

This simple program made by one guy who probably isn’t interested in the whole flat earth thing demonstrates more effort to explain what we see than the entire flat community has  managed to date and most likely ever will.



Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on December 19, 2019, 05:09:20 PM
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
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 12:04:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 12:33:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 20, 2019, 12:52:26 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
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on December 20, 2019, 01:06:20 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 ;D? They don't seem to refer to any flat Earth astronomers.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 03:27:40 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.




Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 03:39:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 20, 2019, 04:13:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on December 20, 2019, 04:41:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 20, 2019, 12:59:26 PM
How many times do you all need to be told to stop spamming?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: 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.


Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 21, 2019, 01:48:49 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Smoke Machine on December 21, 2019, 03:00:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on December 21, 2019, 03:59:19 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 02, 2020, 03:47:44 AM
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
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on January 02, 2020, 07:05:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 04, 2020, 04:07:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 05:22:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 05:27:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 06, 2020, 05:34:57 AM
Dude, there is such a thing as actual blue moons.
It goes well with orange slices and ranting about flat earth.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 05:49:58 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 06, 2020, 06:48:19 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 08:19:01 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?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 06, 2020, 09:09:42 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 06, 2020, 10:23:38 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Stash on January 06, 2020, 10:47:00 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"?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 06, 2020, 10:47:40 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
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 06, 2020, 10:58:41 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 06, 2020, 11:00:07 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.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Idkimstupid on January 06, 2020, 11:02:35 AM
Moonbounce aka EME has been done by amateur radio enthusiasts since the mid 60s.  With the advent of new digital software and modes you an do this with as little as 10W ,as shown on the Essex Ham website that Assad the main topic was to prove the distance to the moon using radio, not only does this hobby prove the distance but also goes to prove the speed of light as without the speed being a constant 299792458m/s both on and off the earth no antenna would resonate at its fundamental frequency.ergo the speed of light is correct as is the 384,400km to the moon, pretty simple really.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 06, 2020, 11:04:25 AM
Moonbounce aka EME has been done by amateur radio enthusiasts since the mid 60s.  With the advent of new digital software and modes you an do this with as little as 10W ,as shown on the Essex Ham website that Assad the main topic was to prove the distance to the moon using radio, not only does this hobby prove the distance but also goes to prove the speed of light as without the speed being a constant 299792458m/s both on and off the earth no antenna would resonate at its fundamental frequency.ergo the speed of light is correct as is the 384,400km to the moon, pretty simple really.
Why is the moon 384,000km away? Because of the speed of light.
What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.

I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 06, 2020, 12:08:44 PM
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.
And doing this with the assumption that Earth is flat gives you multiple different answers depending upon location.
But it does have the big problem of figuring out how far away the point the moon is above.

A better way would be to use tape measure.
No, using a tape measure to measure the distance would be one of the worst methods for such a long distance.

But a tape measure is not the only way to measure distance.
There are plenty of other ways.
Even using a tape measure is not a direct measurement. You still use sight or some other method to line it up.

Why is the moon 384,000km away? Because of the speed of light.
Speed of light, size of Earth's shadow or parallax

What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.
I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
Good thing it ins't circular at all.
You pretending it is circular doesn't magically make it so.

The speed of light can be directly measured on Earth. We don't need the moon to measure it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 06, 2020, 12:14:50 PM
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.
Are you saying that indirect measurements can't be accurate and reliable?  ???
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 06, 2020, 12:19:42 PM
Moonbounce aka EME has been done by amateur radio enthusiasts since the mid 60s.  With the advent of new digital software and modes you an do this with as little as 10W ,as shown on the Essex Ham website that Assad the main topic was to prove the distance to the moon using radio, not only does this hobby prove the distance but also goes to prove the speed of light as without the speed being a constant 299792458m/s both on and off the earth no antenna would resonate at its fundamental frequency.ergo the speed of light is correct as is the 384,400km to the moon, pretty simple really.
Why is the moon 384,000km away? Because of the speed of light.
What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.

I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
Yes, which is why that isn't how the speed of light is measured.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 06, 2020, 12:53:55 PM
Why is the moon (about) 384,000km away?
What a weird question. One might as well ask "Why is the equator about 6215 miles from the North Pole?" Or "Why is a duck" for that matter!

Quote from: John Davis
Because of the speed of light.
No, the Moon is not (about) 384,000km away "because of the speed of light". The Moon is "(about) 384,000km away" because that is where it is!

Quote from: John Davis
What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.
The speed of light has never been determined as "speed necessary for emr to reach the moon" by anyone seriously measuring the speed of light.
"Michelson's refinement of the Foucault experiment" gave a value of "299,796±4 km/s was only about 4 km/s higher than the current accepted value".
And the Moon never came into it! Would you like some references to confirm that?

Quote from: John Davis
I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
It seems that your thoughts are not very logical then but I always knew that real flat-Earthers abhorred logic, mathematics and science.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 02:28:27 PM
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.

As a prolific flat earth scientist could you provide links to all your papers that show how all the methods I listed that have been used to calculate/find the distance to the moon are in your words laughable? Im assuming you do have rock-solid verifiable data that can be corroborated by others, as it’s quite a claim you make.
I have to say I’m a bit suspicious as you mentioned on another part of the forum that there were a number of flat earth astronomers. I’ve tried looking for them and their publications but have drawn a blank. Even one of your Mods tried a search but he just turned up a bunch of bum links. For you to refute all the methods listed above you would have to have done some serious science using some serious equipment. Possibly when you publish all this work you can tell us all where your scientific research facility is.
It’s also odd that all the other non flat earth astronomers in the world, that’s all of them not just some,  would not agree with your statement that pointed to all the above methods being laughable.
While you are at it what method would you use for calculating the moons size and distance. It would be good to know as Tom Bishop was very reluctant to share his.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 06, 2020, 06:59:52 PM
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.
Really? Would you care to show where exactly in "Earth: Not A Globe" Rowbotham shows "calculations can be done by any school child, and have been done again and again over the past at least 3,000 years".

I'll eagerly await your reply.

By the way, Rowbotham did write this about the "THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN" and "all the visible luminaries in the firmament."
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, Earth is Not a Globe (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.
IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[iIf any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; ]so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.[/i]

The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles.


So, Rowbotham claims that "under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles.

Yet both this and the "other society" claim this:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
The Sun (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun)
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And this:
Quote from:  The Flat Earth Society Wiki
The Moon (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Moon)
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Please explain!

And you dare criticise astronomers with regard to the distance of the Moon from the Earth!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 06, 2020, 07:18:42 PM
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
None of these methods have been verified independently and shown to accurately show said distance is correct.
Really? Try again!

Just look at the history of the "Distance to the Moon".

The distance to the moon has been known to a reasonable accuracy for millennia.
Quote
Aristarchus around 270 BC derived the Moon's distance from the duration of a lunar eclipse (Hipparchus later found an independent method).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From this Aristarchus obtained
                                          Rmoon's orbit/rearth ~ 60
which fits the average distance of the Moon accepted today, 60 Earth radii or about 382,260 km..

From The Moon's Distance--1 (http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Shipprc2.htm)
That 60 Earth radii is about 382,300 km.

Quote
Hipparchus (probably in 129 BC), whose calculations produced a result of 59-67 R. This method later found its way into the work of Ptolemy, who produced a result of 64 1/6 R at its farthest point.
Note that R is the radius of the earth.
And the result of 59-67 R ranges from 375,900 km to 426,900 km straddles the current value.
But it should be noted that the distance to the moon varies from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km at apogee - maybe Hipparchus wasn't so far out.

Quote
An expedition by French astronomer A.C.D Crommelin observed meridional transits of the Moon (the moment when the Moon crosses an imaginary great circle that passes directly overhead and through the poles) on the same night from two different locations. Careful measurements from 1905 through 1910 measured the angle of elevation at the moment when a specific lunar crater (Mösting A) crossed the meridian, from stations at Greenwich and at Cape of Good Hope, which share nearly the same longitude. A distance was calculated with an uncertainty of ± 30 km, and remained the definitive lunar distance value for the next half century.

Quote
Astronomers O'Keefe and Anderson calculated the lunar distance by observing 4 occultations from 9 locations in 1952. They calculated a mean distance of 384407.6±4.7 km, however the value was refined by in 1962 by Irene Fischer, who incorporated updated geodetic data to produce a value of 384403.7±2 km.

Now, of course, we have radar and laser measurements to greater precision.

That indirect measurements dating back 2290 years put your flat Earth guesses to shame!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 06, 2020, 10:22:49 PM
A better way would be to use (a) tape measure. Not one of these methods directly measures distance.
Why then don't geodetic surveyors use tape measures to measure long distances on earth?
The distance across the United States is comparable to the flat-Earthers claim for the distance to the Moon.
But those surveyors used triangulation.

When the French surveyors and astronomers measured the length of part of the meridian through Paris why didn't they "use (a) tape measure"?
For some reason, they carefully measured one of more base-lines, essentially with tape-measures and then used triangulation.

Well, that is exactly what astronomers do wherever possible.

Quote from: John Davis
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.
Nobody can, at present, "use (a) tape measure" to measure distances of thousands of kilometers, even on Earth so how would you suggest that these distances might be measured?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 01:33:31 AM
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.

It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 03:20:05 AM
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.

It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
No, "Guesses aren't fact" so why are you doing nothing but guessing? Surely, though, you jest.

One who claims to "know everything" must know that those are not guesses but, as I stated, are the perigee and apogee distances of the elliptical Lunar orbit.

But, I guess I'll humour you with this extra information.
Quote
The Inconstant Moon (http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html)
The following table shows larger images of perigean and apogean full Moons, with details of the position of the Moon at the moment the pictures were taken. 
Views from Mill Valley, CA, USA, 37°54' N 122°32' W; all times UTC

(http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/perigee.jpg)                        Perigee
Date/time: 1987 August 10 08:00
Moon:
          Age: 15 Days, 19 Hours
          Phase: 98%
          Full: 1987 August 9 10:18
          Perigee: 1987 August 8 19:00, 357643 km
Geocentric:
          Distance: 359861 km
Topocentric:
          Distance: 359000 km
          Angle subtended: 0.5548°
         
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/apogee.jpg)                        Apogee
Date/time: 1988 February 2 06:00
Moon:
          Age: 14 Days, 5 Hours
          Phase: 99%
          Full: 1988 February 2 20:52
          Apogee: 1988 February 3 10:00, 406395 km
Geocentric:
          Distance: 405948 km
Topocentric:
          Distance: 404510 km
          Angle subtended: 0.4923°
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The mean distance to the moon, 384401 km, is the semimajor axis of its elliptical orbit. The closest perigee in the years 1750 through 2125 was 356375 km on 4th January 1912; the most distant apogee in the same period will be 406720 km on 3rd February 2125 (have your camera ready!).
And the exact perigee and apogee distances depend slightly on the Sun and the positions of the other planets.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 04:01:53 AM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: totallackey on January 07, 2020, 04:36:59 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
Okay...a direct question.

Can dust particles suspended in the atmolayer of earth refract light?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 07, 2020, 06:59:29 AM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts

You basically you have an option either you ask John Davis with his trusty tape measure or you could contact these chaps:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

In the end, it depends on who or what you wish to believe. I plum for the science guys as regardless of the option used and who does the calculations (see above methods) all the answers end up in the same ballpark. Due to the moon's orbit the distance does of course vary. but a good general figure is 384,000 km.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on January 07, 2020, 07:01:21 AM
I would say no to refraction as light needs to pass through a medium to be refracted.

Dust particle are excellent at scattering light though. Hence you cannot see very well through haze or fog. The mean particle size is large compared to the wavelength of visible light, hence the photons are scattered readily.  Infra-red and radio waves are less affected.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 07, 2020, 07:05:40 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
Okay...a direct question.

Can dust particles suspended in the atmolayer of earth refract light?

What is the 'atmolayer', it's not a term I'm familiar with and neither is any science reference book.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 07:06:36 AM
but a good general figure is 384,000 km.
General figure?

Doesn't sound very 'sciencey' for someone who claims to love science

If the figure is in a continued state of flux, then tell me where it's at at the time of writing.

You think people went on the Moon and pranced around like clowns? (and maybe taking a wizz on it) Did they assume a distance for the fuel load? "Oh its generally 384,000km away, fuel up for that"

I think not. A tape measure would be best however I find the damn metal ones bend and go floppy for any distance over 2m or so. So even a tape measure is a crappy tool
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 07, 2020, 07:09:59 AM
Fuck math. How does it work?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 08:34:50 AM
General figure?

Doesn't sound very 'sciencey' for someone who claims to love science
Okay, everybody, raise your hand if you understand what perigee and apogee are.  You're allowed to google it first.

If the figure is in a continued state of flux, then tell me where it's at at the time of writing.
No really, you're allowed to google it.  https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 08:46:44 AM
General figure?

Doesn't sound very 'sciencey' for someone who claims to love science
Okay, everybody, raise your hand if you understand what perigee and apogee are.  You're allowed to google it first.

If the figure is in a continued state of flux, then tell me where it's at at the time of writing.
No really, you're allowed to google it.  https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html

That link is not helpful. It doesn't tell me the distance to the km right this second. It is always changing yes? So any answer you give is technically incorrect. You cant just give an 'average' +/- 21296km. You could be wrong by that many km. More than half the circumference of the Earth!

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 08:56:43 AM
So any answer you give is technically incorrect.
Oh, so you just asked a stupid question.  My bad, I thought you were looking for information.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 08:59:54 AM
So any answer you give is technically incorrect.
Oh, so you just asked a stupid question.  My bad, I thought you were looking for information.

I was.

How do you determine the distance of the moon in real time and if it's simple, why doesn't anyone do it and simply parrot a figure which could be wrong by allegedly as much as 21296km

Even in a globe world that level of error should be a tough pill to swallow
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 07, 2020, 09:11:40 AM
So any answer you give is technically incorrect.
Oh, so you just asked a stupid question.  My bad, I thought you were looking for information.
You've not met Shifter before then?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 09:26:24 AM
You've not met Shifter before then?
I just like highlighting his aggressive ignorance.

How do you determine the distance of the moon in real time
If you want precise real time, you'll probably want lasers or at least radar.  But if you'd actually like to do it yourself, give this a shot:  https://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/

(Don't worry, we all know you won't.)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 09:32:18 AM
You've not met Shifter before then?
I just like highlighting his aggressive ignorance.
There was nothing aggressive about asking an honest question in measuring the distance to an object (in this case the Moon) in real time. I find your responses however to be needlessly condescending

How do you determine the distance of the moon in real time
If you want precise real time, you'll probably want lasers or at least radar.  But if you'd actually like to do it yourself, give this a shot:  https://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/

(Don't worry, we all know you won't.)

Why do you think I wont?

Are you happy to assume the moon is 'roughly' 384,000km all the time? Aren't you the least bit curious to what the real distance is every time you look at it?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 10:12:04 AM
I find your responses however to be needlessly condescending
Prepare yourself.

Why do you think I wont?
Because you are aggressively ignorant.  A trivial Google search could provide you with more information than you'd have the attention span to read.  Instead, you ask us here to Google it for you.  Pathetic.

Are you happy to assume the moon is 'roughly' 384,000km all the time? Aren't you the least bit curious to what the real distance is every time you look at it?
I assume every moment I am not staring at the moon, it loses its inertia and begins an immediate plummet towards Hyrule.  But I know a guy.  He fixes it up every three days or so.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 10:26:42 AM
I find your responses however to be needlessly condescending
Prepare yourself.

Why do you think I wont?
Because you are aggressively ignorant.  A trivial Google search could provide you with more information than you'd have the attention span to read.  Instead, you ask us here to Google it for you.  Pathetic.
Do you often answer peoples questions like this? Calling them pathetic because they could just use Google to find an answer? And you call others aggressive!! Perhaps you are looking in the mirror when you say it so. You should calm down.

For your information, I was asking, not for me, but for posterity. To have an answer to a question in this thread that is true and proper. Not some BS lazy '384000km away' answer. So sick of people parroting lazy and incorrect answers. You can find a lot of wrong informaytion of Google too. If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Are you happy to assume the moon is 'roughly' 384,000km all the time? Aren't you the least bit curious to what the real distance is every time you look at it?
I assume every moment I am not staring at the moon, it loses its inertia and begins an immediate plummet towards Hyrule.  But I know a guy.  He fixes it up every three days or so.

Nonsense
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 10:43:03 AM
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Whenever you get called out for being a pedantic ignoramus, you retreat back to established knowledge and act defensive.  You're such a troll.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 07, 2020, 11:05:33 AM
Moonbounce aka EME has been done by amateur radio enthusiasts since the mid 60s.  With the advent of new digital software and modes you an do this with as little as 10W ,as shown on the Essex Ham website that Assad the main topic was to prove the distance to the moon using radio, not only does this hobby prove the distance but also goes to prove the speed of light as without the speed being a constant 299792458m/s both on and off the earth no antenna would resonate at its fundamental frequency.ergo the speed of light is correct as is the 384,400km to the moon, pretty simple really.
Why is the moon 384,000km away? Because of the speed of light.
What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.

I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
do you have a low cost laser measure that uses the speed of light?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 11:15:15 AM
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Whenever you get called out for being a pedantic ignoramus, you retreat back to established knowledge and act defensive.  You're such a troll.

No. Because when you dont qualify the number, the answer you give is a guess at the time of your writing.

No one for instance will say it is 400,000km away or 399,999km away. The numbers provided are either the furthest established km, or the closest, or the 'average' but the average is never qualified with the +/-. At least, it was not in this thread

At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.

Don't tell me the moon is 384,000km away when you dont know that it is at the time you say it. Don't be lazy. Get a laser, get the info and tell me if you really want to preach it

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 07, 2020, 11:24:53 AM
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Whenever you get called out for being a pedantic ignoramus, you retreat back to established knowledge and act defensive.  You're such a troll.

No. Because when you dont qualify the number, the answer you give is a guess at the time of your writing.

No one for instance will say it is 400,000km away or 399,999km away. The numbers provided are either the furthest established km, or the closest, or the 'average' but the average is never qualified with the +/-. At least, it was not in this thread

At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.

Don't tell me the moon is 384,000km away when you dont know that it is at the time you say it. Don't be lazy. Get a laser, get the info and tell me if you really want to preach it
We know the distance changes due to the movement of the earth and the moon, what's your issue?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 11:49:05 AM
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 12:15:14 PM
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.

Keep in mind I'm the guy that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe  8)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 07, 2020, 01:00:25 PM
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.

Keep in mind I'm the guy that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe  8)

It appears odd that you demand needless accuracy on the distance of the moon when the argument is if its near, and you will have to ask John Davis the man with the tape exactly how near, or if it's much farther in the region of 384,000 km.  It also strikes me as odd that you demand such accuracy when you yourself are vague in so many things. Its the type of argument that a small child would use, pi tp 62 places, that's just plain ridiculous. I spent a career in 'measuring' and at no time did I ever come across a request for anywhere close to such accuracy. The real world does not operate in that way, but possibly you don't live in the real world. Have you any idea of the implications if everyone demanded such accuracy? How far do you think the moon is by the way? the nearest 1000Km would suffice!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:03:38 PM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 01:05:59 PM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.

Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded. Only small minded people like yourself are happy living in ignorant bliss. I guess that's why it's bliss
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:11:55 PM
Keep in mind I'm the guy fusspot (FTFY) that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe   >:D
And who cares about that accuracy when nobody would claim to know what you even mean by "an area the size of the observable universe"?
Do you want volume, area, length or what?

This is the "Debate" forum. How about posting something meaningful instead of useless time-wasting crap?

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:14:12 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2020, 01:15:26 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 07, 2020, 01:37:04 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Only to the amount needed for the particular event.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:39:12 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?

For example the best value of the Universal Gravitational Constant, G,
            is currently 6.67430 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
            but the uncertaincy is 0.00015 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
Writing G down to 62 decimal places would be a useless waste of time and computer resources.

The distance to the moon could be measured by laser at a given time to very high accuracy but as the distance varies with time that information is useful only to astronomers improving their understanding of the motion of the moon and what affects it.

There is no point in you or I bothering about it to that accuracy.
I might be able to say that the moon is now 382,173 km from here, about 382,113 km from Canberra but tomorrow it might be 376,951 km away from here.

So, for ordinary people like you and I, who cares?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 07, 2020, 01:39:55 PM
That link is not helpful. It doesn't tell me the distance to the km right this second.
Either find someone you can buddy up with to measure the parallax and calculate it right this second, or go perform a ranging experiment right this second.

If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?
No. The majority of that error is meaningless.

Who really cares if it is 21296 or 21300?
If you are going to do that at least round the error appropriately.

I assume every moment I am not staring at the moon, it loses its inertia and begins an immediate plummet towards Hyrule.  But I know a guy.  He fixes it up every three days or so.
I assume by Hyrule you mean Termina?
But don't worry, it can still happen even when you are looking at it.

Thank the Giants.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: MouseWalker on January 07, 2020, 02:27:45 PM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.

Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded. Only small minded people like yourself are happy living in ignorant bliss. I guess that's why it's bliss
Precise distance to the Moon at the moment is not needed, if launching a probe to the moon, it is not where it is now, but  at launch and  where it will be when my probe gets there. Note there's a large margin for error, due to lunch delays, etc.

P.s. it is not even night know where I am.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 07, 2020, 02:40:18 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Not true....accuracy is dependent on circumstances, need and of course cost. Every decimal point you add to the tolerances or accuracy of a manufactured component the difficulty of both manufacture and the cost go up very steeply indeed. Unless you are or have been involved in ‘measuring’ few people have any real idea of what’s involved and the implications. So to answer your question, accuracy can be a good idea if the requirements for it are justified. The other problem with accuracy is defining exactly what you mean by it. The language used has to be commensurate with the accuracy  demanded, in that you have to clearly define what exactly you mean by accurate.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 07, 2020, 05:17:43 PM
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?
You guys mean precision, not accuracy.


Oh no, now I am the autistic pedant!  :-[
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 05:23:55 PM
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?
You guys mean precision, not accuracy.

Oh no, now I am the autistic pedant!  :-[
Yes. But possibly not autistic.

But one has to use words Shifter understands ::).
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 07, 2020, 06:21:29 PM
Are you happy to assume the moon is 'roughly' 384,000km all the time? Aren't you the least bit curious to what the real distance is every time you look at it?
Not really.  Are you?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 07, 2020, 06:27:12 PM
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.
That's known as trolling.  Guess who took the bait.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on January 07, 2020, 06:29:26 PM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Wrong.  This is called false precision, and it's most definitely bad practice.  At best it's unnecessary, at worst misleading.  Do this at university in a technical degree and expect to lose marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 12:41:39 AM
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Wrong.  This is called false precision, and it's most definitely bad practice.  At best it's unnecessary, at worst misleading.  Do this at university in a technical degree and expect to lose marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think. I've worked at a university with a professor. They are not what they are cracked up to be. After my nearly 15 years at that joint I lost a lot of faith in the scientific process

Cherry picking of data, changing the conditions and controls mid experiment. Changing the dose of drugs to experimental mice because "Oh shit they keep dying from internal bleeds". It's all BS.

The 'professor' spent the entire year preparing for grant funding. And the only way you get the money is through pretty looking results. And the only way our lab could do it was by fudging everything. When a drug is made by a company listed on a stock market, they dont want it to look bad

They even put a number to the drug. 88. Why 88 you ask? Because 8 is a lucky number in Chinese and they hoped to attract Chinese investors or some other garbage.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2020, 12:46:52 AM
You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think.
No, you lose marks specifically because the syllabus includes precision and accuracy as part of it, and because the instructor is trying to have you think.

By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

I've worked at a university
And I'm sure as a cleaner you saw all sorts of stuff.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 12:50:59 AM
You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think.
No, you lose marks specifically because the syllabus includes precision and accuracy as part of it, and because the instructor is trying to have you think.

By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

I've worked at a university
And I'm sure as a cleaner you saw all sorts of stuff.

I was not a 'cleaner'. I was an animal/laboratory technician dumbo. I guess cleaning was involved (mice dont clean and autoclave the cages themselves) but not in the way you insinuate. I also injected the mice with the drugs, kept the records, plotted the data (only to find many plot points disappear as the professor decided they were outliers or changed the conditions post experiment) and managed the ordering and maintenance of laboratory equipment.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 12:53:56 AM
By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

Here is pi to 62 places after the decimal point
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

Which number(s) is 'made up'?

or are you talking nonsense again!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2020, 02:40:21 AM
I was not a 'cleaner'. I was an animal/laboratory technician dumbo.
Sure you were...

Here is pi to 62 places after the decimal point
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

Which number(s) is 'made up'?

or are you talking nonsense again!
And good job ignoring the point, yet again, all so you can boost your ego, just like pretending you worked at a uni.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 08, 2020, 02:43:48 AM
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOU 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?
 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 02:59:20 AM
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOU 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

My '62 decimal point' standard applies to pi. I see no reason not to calculate that given our working usable universe is 93 billion light years across. It is enough that we end there.

I gave the dose I was instructed to. To be frank, I didn't care after a while. I knew it was all BS and that they would change it later anyway. Honestly working in medical research really disenfranchised me to the field

Any wonder why you see on the news (and my boss made it on the news more than once) a 'miracle' sounding new therapy has just been discovered and is going to proceed to clinical trials. But you never hear about it again. It's because you cant fake this shit in higher stage clinical trials. And it obviously suggests that the experimental work and research leading up to the clinical trial stage was littered in bullshit

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 08, 2020, 03:14:02 AM
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.

My '62 decimal point' standard applies to pi. I see no reason not to calculate that given our working usable universe is 93 billion light years across. It is enough that we end there.
In other words all your "'62 decimal point' standard" is useless crap because there is no way to "measure" the size of the observant Universal to 2 decimal places let alone 62.
Now what about this?

Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Quote from: rabinoz
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 03:23:06 AM
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Quote from: rabinoz
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

There is no accuracy there. But unlike you, they are working on it. You believe you're already there

If I need to measure the distance to a fuel station I dont need to know the kilometres to 62 decimal places. Also, it wouldn;t make a lot of sense to use 62 decimal places for every unit of measure. 62 places for kilometres, 62 places for metres? 62 places for nano metres? You get the point

But for pi, nothing wrong with 62 decimal places

By all means, send your rocket ship to Pluto using 3.14. Don't come crying to me when things go awry for the inaccuracy

Use 2 decimal places to measure the circumference of a circle you just drew on your desk for all I care. Just dont tell me that answer is 'precise'. It has error.

Because if you say 3.14, you are essentially using pi but changing the calculation to 3.14000000000.....00000 etc. And that is wrong.

How many here give shit to Danang for his take on pi? It's wrong but so is 3.14000000000.....00000
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 08, 2020, 05:03:26 AM
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

There is no accuracy there. But unlike you, they are working on it.
[/quote]
Really, where are they "working on it"?

I dare you to even try to convince Sandokhan that he's wrong about anything.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 05:18:34 AM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 08, 2020, 06:59:41 AM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
I'll take this to mean that you've given up trying to troll about the distance to the moon.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 07:11:22 AM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
I'll take this to mean that you've given up trying to troll about the distance to the moon.

Try and keep up. That argument is done and dusted
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 08, 2020, 07:21:50 AM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
We all know the decimal form is an approximation. Should have been covered the first day you used pi in school.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 07:34:14 AM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
We all know the decimal form is an approximation. Should have been covered the first day you used pi in school.

So because 'you know' that's okay to omit the information from publishing?

Riiiiight..... ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 08, 2020, 08:36:18 AM
The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

We are all losers.



... but not equally.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2020, 11:21:56 AM
He's only here to troll rab.  It's his hobby.

rab has some kind of neurological condition that forces him to respond.

All kinda depressing.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 11:35:23 AM
He's only here to troll rab.  It's his hobby.

rab has some kind of neurological condition that forces him to respond.

All kinda depressing.

rab is as insignificant as dust to me. How would you view something orders of magnitude inferior to you? Do you care for a flea? A dung beetle? A bacteria? No.

You pay them the same mind I pay rab. He's an occasional source of 'amusement' shall we say.

Do you have anything for me? Or are you going to continue trolling this thread talking nonsense amongst yourselves?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 08, 2020, 12:26:39 PM
I wish Shifter was funny like the other trolls on this forum. :(
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 08, 2020, 12:38:08 PM
Indirect measurements are only valid once they have been validated directly over and over again. Simply saying you indirectly measured it with no evidence of the validity of said indirect measurement lends no more credence than having not measured it all and simply fudged the numbers to match current theory.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: sokarul on January 08, 2020, 12:46:18 PM
So tell me. Is pi 3.14? Or do you concede that is incorrect

Remember pi is an irrational number. 3.14 is not absolute.
We all know the decimal form is an approximation. Should have been covered the first day you used pi in school.

So because 'you know' that's okay to omit the information from publishing?

Riiiiight..... ::)

I don’t expect you to understand.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 12:51:23 PM
I wish Shifter was funny like the other trolls on this forum. :(

Sorry. Can't all be as 'funny' as you ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2020, 01:01:24 PM
Do you have anything for me?
No.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 01:17:19 PM
Do you have anything for me?
No.

Okaly Dokaly
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2020, 01:46:16 PM
Because if you say 3.14, you are essentially using pi but changing the calculation to 3.14000000000.....00000 etc. And that is wrong.
No, that is only the case if you try reporting your answer to too many sig figs.
For example, have a circle measured to the nearest mm, as 265 mm, then try calculating using pi to 62 decimal places and just reporting the answer to 60 decimal places.
That means you have changed the 265 mm to 265.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, which is wrong.
That is why people get penalised for it. All those 0s are made up, and thus any number based upon them, is likewise made up.

3.14 is correct, to that degree of precision.
That is nothing like Danang, that gives a value that is incorrect to the precision that it is reported to.

You will also have a very difficult time trying to find anyone that claims pi is exactly 3.14 and that the accepted value is wrong because it has too many digits.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 08, 2020, 02:09:56 PM
He's only here to troll rab.  It's his hobby.

rab has some kind of neurological condition that forces him to respond.

All kinda depressing.
rab is as insignificant as dust to me. How would you view something orders of magnitude inferior to you? Do you care for a flea? A dung beetle? A bacteria? No.
Then why don't you present logical arguments against the points that I raise instead of forever making personal attacks?
Quote
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case.

Have you bothered to read the OP? Here is is:
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.
All you've posted so far is meaningless things like:
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
When it was already stated that "the distance to the moon varies from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km at apogee".
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
And from what I can see every post you make is no more than an attempted distraction from the purpose of the thread.

Now would you care to post something relevant instead of doing your best to de-rail the thread?

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2020, 11:26:11 PM
I've posted logical arguments. You guys disagree with logic. That's not my oroblem

You know in any given time the Moon is at a distance between its perigee and apogee. We can agree on this?

Where we differ is when you pluck a figure between those numbers out of the air and say that's where the Moon is at. I would rather the precision in a figure that is actually where the moon is at, at the time you say it. The technology exists. Use it



Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 12:49:37 AM
I've posted logical arguments. You guys disagree with logic. That's not my oroblem
Really?
You seemed to just be stroking your ego and dodging the issue, as you did yet again.


Where we differ is when you pluck a figure between those numbers out of the air and say that's where the Moon is at. I would rather the precision in a figure that is actually where the moon is at, at the time you say it. The technology exists. Use it
See, I don't. I know that it varies and instead don't just pick a figure at random.
I would rather have a statement which isn't limited to the very second it was said, especially online. Such a statement would require a qualification that that is just what it is now.
And while the technology exists, I really can't be bothered using it every time I want to talk about the Moon.
If it is so easy, why don't you tell us how far away the moon is right now?

But thanks for Rab bringing us back on topic.

As you seem to claim to be so smart, how about you tell us how we can calculate the azimuth of the sun at sunset for a RE based upon straight line geometry?

I was trying before, realised it was going to be a bit of a pain and not worth the effort, but maybe you, with your AbsolutelyStupidIdiot can do it?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 09, 2020, 03:32:36 AM
I've posted logical arguments. You guys disagree with logic. That's not my oroblem
Really? I posted this:
But it should be noted that the distance to the moon varies from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km at apogee.
And you follow with:
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact.
I would not call that even slightly logical following my "it should be noted that the distance to the moon varies from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km at apogee.", would you?

Quote from: Shifter
You know in any given time the Moon is at a distance between its perigee and apogee. We can agree on this?
Have you no memory or are you joking? Of course I agree with that!
I was the one that wrote, "it should be noted that the distance to the moon varies from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km at apogee"!

I did round those distances because the perigee and apogee distances vary slightly.

Quote from: Shifter
Where we differ is when you pluck a figure between those numbers out of the air and say that's where the Moon is at.
We do? Where did I "pluck a figure between those numbers out of the air"?

Quote from: Shifter
I would rather the precision in a figure that is actually where the moon is at, at the time you say it. The technology exists. Use it
The "technology exists" to calculate the moon's geocentric or topocentric distances at a given time but what use is that to anyone else?
For example I could say that from here at 08:55:55 PM the distance to the moon distance was 377,297 km.

But that would be useless to anyone else. It might be more useful to just give the average distance to the Moon.

Maybe you could address the flat-Earth earth claims about the distance to the moon:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Then
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he is simply observing the moon's day and night, a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
You complain about the precision of Globe measurements yet you flat-Earthers claim things like "the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes"!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 09:43:12 AM
Moonbounce aka EME has been done by amateur radio enthusiasts since the mid 60s.  With the advent of new digital software and modes you an do this with as little as 10W ,as shown on the Essex Ham website that Assad the main topic was to prove the distance to the moon using radio, not only does this hobby prove the distance but also goes to prove the speed of light as without the speed being a constant 299792458m/s both on and off the earth no antenna would resonate at its fundamental frequency.ergo the speed of light is correct as is the 384,400km to the moon, pretty simple really.
Why is the moon 384,000km away? Because of the speed of light.
What is the speed of light? It is the speed necessary for emr to reach the moon such that its distance is measured 384,000km away.

I thought you scientific types abhorred circular logic?
do you have a low cost laser measure that uses the speed of light?
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement; it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 09, 2020, 09:44:28 AM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement; it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Would you like to share this "heavy support" with the rest of the class?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 11:44:11 AM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement; it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Would you like to share this "heavy support" with the rest of the class?
Yes. The space medium, and specifically the interplanetary medium, is not a vacuum to start with - it's supposedly plasma and dust. One can note this by looking at a false dawn.

Much work has been done in the larger scope of things around studying whether the speed of light is constant in the space medium, if it suffers from dispersive extinction which could explain red shift, and if the permiability and permiativity of space is what we suspect. Those last two values determine, specifically, the speed of light through its medium.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 09, 2020, 11:46:21 AM
If you were to give a wild estimate on the speed difference between c and the speed of light through the interplanetary medium, what would that difference be?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 11:54:47 AM
If you were to give a wild estimate on the speed difference between c and the speed of light through the interplanetary medium, what would that difference be?
We have no idea since we have never directly measured the distances involved. That is my point.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 09, 2020, 11:59:59 AM
I didn't say anything about distance.  I'm just talking about the propagation of light.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 12:45:12 PM
I didn't say anything about distance.  I'm just talking about the propagation of light.
You asked for a speed difference. How would you like me to measure speed without using distance?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 01:01:19 PM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement
A tape measure being lined up by sight would be an indirect measurement as it relies upon lining up the tape measure, and relies upon the tape measure being accurate.
Who knows, maybe there is a distortion of space which contracts the tape measure.

it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Care to provide some of this heavy support?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 09, 2020, 01:14:59 PM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement; it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.

Would please you post you evidence for the claim,
"it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not."

If you assert that "it's heavily supported that it does not" you must have solid evidence.

Now the topic is "The Bishop Challenge" and that challenge is:
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:
Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics, you lose.  ;)
  << Tom Bishop's words! >>
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)

The Flat Earth Society claims this about the distance to the moon:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Wiki
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


So please justify the claim that the Moon "has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth".
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 09, 2020, 01:21:08 PM
You asked for a speed difference. How would you like me to measure speed without using distance?
I didn't ask for a measurement, did I?   Was the original John Davis this trolly or is this a new feature of his replacement?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 09, 2020, 01:41:18 PM
Would you like to share this "heavy support" with the rest of the class?
Yes. The space medium, and specifically the interplanetary medium, is not a vacuum to start with - it's supposedly plasma and dust.
Just your words with no references and not even any orders of magnitude as to the values involved.

Quote from: John Davis
One can note this by looking at a false dawn.
Whatever the density of the dust particles causing a false dawn or Zodiacal light, it seems to put the kibosh on any thoughts of a flat Earth with a nearby Sun and stars.
All you need to know: Zodiacal light (https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-zodiacal-light-or-false-dawn)

Quote from: John Davis
Much work has been done in the larger scope of things around studying whether the speed of light is constant in the space medium, if it suffers from dispersive extinction which could explain red shift, and if the permiability and permiativity of space is what we suspect. Those last two values determine, specifically, the speed of light through its medium.
Sure, the permeability and permittivity determine the velocity of light but where is your evidence that the permeability and permittivity of space differ measurably from the permittivity of a vacuum.

In a topic like this, relative values are extremely important.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 10, 2020, 02:25:51 AM
You asked for a speed difference. How would you like me to measure speed without using distance?
I didn't ask for a measurement, did I?   Was the original John Davis this trolly
Pretty much, but he was more subtle and made more effort to pretend otherwise.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 09:22:07 AM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement
A tape measure being lined up by sight would be an indirect measurement as it relies upon lining up the tape measure, and relies upon the tape measure being accurate.
Who knows, maybe there is a distortion of space which contracts the tape measure.

it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Care to provide some of this heavy support?
Read the thread.

Would you like to share this "heavy support" with the rest of the class?
Yes. The space medium, and specifically the interplanetary medium, is not a vacuum to start with - it's supposedly plasma and dust.
Just your words with no references and not even any orders of magnitude as to the values involved.

Quote from: John Davis
One can note this by looking at a false dawn.
Whatever the density of the dust particles causing a false dawn or Zodiacal light, it seems to put the kibosh on any thoughts of a flat Earth with a nearby Sun and stars.
All you need to know: Zodiacal light (https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-zodiacal-light-or-false-dawn)

Quote from: John Davis
Much work has been done in the larger scope of things around studying whether the speed of light is constant in the space medium, if it suffers from dispersive extinction which could explain red shift, and if the permiability and permiativity of space is what we suspect. Those last two values determine, specifically, the speed of light through its medium.
Sure, the permeability and permittivity determine the velocity of light but where is your evidence that the permeability and permittivity of space differ measurably from the permittivity of a vacuum.

In a topic like this, relative values are extremely important.
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 09:22:42 AM
You asked for a speed difference. How would you like me to measure speed without using distance?
I didn't ask for a measurement, did I?   Was the original John Davis this trolly
Pretty much, but he was more subtle and made more effort to pretend otherwise.
How am I to tell you the speed difference without making a measurement?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 09:25:19 AM
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

How much do you suppose the interplanetary medium effects the speed of light?  Come on, wild guess.  Just try.  The answer can be qualitative.  Here are some possible choices:

A) totally a lot man like the light just slows way down whoa
B) probably not much at all
C) the speed decrease is just barely measurable by current technology
D) the speed decrease is not measurable by current technology
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 09:27:14 AM
How am I to tell you the speed difference without making a measurement?
You've made the argument that the interplanetary medium slows down light such that interplanetary ranging can't be trusted.

Do you believe what you've said?

Even without a measurement?

Why or why not?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 09:29:39 AM
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

How much do you suppose the interplanetary medium effects the speed of light?  Come on, wild guess.  Just try.  The answer can be qualitative.  Here are some possible choices:

A) totally a lot man like the light just slows way down whoa
B) probably not much at all
C) the speed decrease is just barely measurable by current technology
D) the speed decrease is not measurable by current technology

How am I to tell you the speed difference without making a measurement?
You've made the argument that the interplanetary medium slows down light such that interplanetary ranging can't be trusted.

Do you believe what you've said?

Even without a measurement?

Why or why not?
I've made the argument that we don't know whether it does or not. Which we don't.

Yes I believe what I said.

Now answer me: How can I provide you a speed difference without making a measurement?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Now answer me: How can I provide you a speed difference without making a measurement?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on January 10, 2020, 10:03:26 AM
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

How much do you suppose the interplanetary medium effects the speed of light?  Come on, wild guess.  Just try.  The answer can be qualitative.  Here are some possible choices:

A) totally a lot man like the light just slows way down whoa
B) probably not much at all
C) the speed decrease is just barely measurable by current technology
D) the speed decrease is not measurable by current technology

How am I to tell you the speed difference without making a measurement?
You've made the argument that the interplanetary medium slows down light such that interplanetary ranging can't be trusted.

Do you believe what you've said?

Even without a measurement?

Why or why not?
I've made the argument that we don't know whether it does or not. Which we don't.

Yes I believe what I said.

Now answer me: How can I provide you a speed difference without making a measurement?

Nobody needs to tell you how to back up your own claim.

You’re pulling the same crap as Shifter earlier.  He was demanding other people tell him the exact distance to the moon right now (or rather right then), when he was the only person claiming it was relevant.

Now you have claimed that the speed of light in interplanetary space is significant, and are demanding others tell you how to work it out. 

Lazy, and lacking in both intellectual honesty and curiosity.  But, since I’m feeling super helpful, here’s a starter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/04/05/astroquizzical-speed-of-light-tests/
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 10:05:19 AM
it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Now answer me: How can I provide you a speed difference without making a measurement?
I'm not seeing what you are taking issue to.

Like I said, it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does a vacuum.

How can I provide you with a speed difference without making a measurement?


To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

How much do you suppose the interplanetary medium effects the speed of light?  Come on, wild guess.  Just try.  The answer can be qualitative.  Here are some possible choices:

A) totally a lot man like the light just slows way down whoa
B) probably not much at all
C) the speed decrease is just barely measurable by current technology
D) the speed decrease is not measurable by current technology

How am I to tell you the speed difference without making a measurement?
You've made the argument that the interplanetary medium slows down light such that interplanetary ranging can't be trusted.

Do you believe what you've said?

Even without a measurement?

Why or why not?
I've made the argument that we don't know whether it does or not. Which we don't.

Yes I believe what I said.

Now answer me: How can I provide you a speed difference without making a measurement?

Nobody needs to tell you how to back up your own claim.

You’re pulling the same crap as Shifter earlier.  He was demanding other people tell him the exact distance to the moon right now (or rather right then), when he was the only person claiming it was relevant.

Now you have claimed that the speed of light in interplanetary space is significant, and are demanding others tell you how to work it out. 

Lazy, and lacking in both intellectual honesty and curiosity.  But, since I’m feeling super helpful, here’s a starter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/04/05/astroquizzical-speed-of-light-tests/

I made no such claim. As quoted above, I have made the claim that we don't know whether it is significant or not. If anything, you lot have made the unsupported implicit claim that it is not significant. Then you asked me to tell you the speed difference without using any type of measurement.

Honestly, I can't remember when I've seen a more ridiculous stance to take.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 10:28:12 AM
You seem to be the only person who believes the interstellar medium is a relevant factor, but now you're coy to admit it.  You're retracting your attempt to seed doubt because you've been called out as a troll.  Typical.

But let's play ignorant and consider your far-fetched claim anyway.  The density of the interplanetary medium (https://www.google.com/search?q=density+of+interplanetary) is a handful of particles per cubic centimeter.

Here's a direct measurement that you won't believe so there's no point linking to it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269305003801

Welp.  Looks like there's nothing to worry about.  Planetary ranging is good to go.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 10:37:11 AM
I see no claim there that the speed of light is not affected by said density (or anything else specific to the nature of the medium), nor any direct measurement that would show this to be the case. If these measurements were actually taken in the first place.


Further, I see no need to continue a conversation with someone who is claiming I am a troll. I have not insulted you, and I expect the same.

Good day.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 11:14:50 AM
But you cannot measure the need to continue a conversation with someone who is claiming you are a troll.  So how do we know if it exists or not?

One possibility is to check if it's consistent with all analogous measurements and verifiable physical theory.  But I know that is not the zetetic way.  Zetetics are not allowed to use any prior knowledge nor allowed to verify theory (at least according to this admin (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48821.0)).  Unfortunately, I guess that's all we've got until you can measure it.  And then prove you've measured it.  And then measure the proof.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 11:54:45 AM
But you cannot measure the need to continue a conversation with someone who is claiming you are a troll.  So how do we know if it exists or not?

One possibility is to check if it's consistent with all analogous measurements and verifiable physical theory.  But I know that is not the zetetic way.  Zetetics are not allowed to use any prior knowledge nor allowed to verify theory (at least according to this admin (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48821.0)).  Unfortunately, I guess that's all we've got until you can measure it.  And then prove you've measured it.  And then measure the proof.
Again, I am not continuing any conversation I have with you, and will not respond in the future to you in any meaningful way.

Now are there any other round earthers that have any valid points to make? This seems like a clear cut win for Bishop.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 12:10:30 PM
Now are there any other trolls that have any distractions to make? This seems like a clear cut win for planet ranging.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 12:11:31 PM
I guess not. Another victory for the flat earth!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 12:15:04 PM
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.
You seem to be under the impression that "vacuum" is an absolute condition.  It isn't.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 12:17:40 PM
A perfect vacuum is an absolute condition, and it is what I'm referring to. Of course, such a vacuum is impossible again showing how silly round earth physics really is.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 12:23:04 PM
A perfect vacuum is an absolute condition, and it is what I'm referring to.
No one is claiming that space is a perfect vacuum.  However, space is so close to a perfect vacuum, that it could be considered one for the scale of earth-moon laser measurements.  That is unless you have evidence that there exists some medium between the earth and moon (other than the earth's atmoplane) that should affect the speed of light.  If you have such evidence, please feel free to provide it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 12:24:55 PM
I have yet to see any proof that light indeeds travel at the speed claimed through the space medium. This claim is not mine but that of the round earthers in this thread and elsewhere. As pointed out by them earlier, why should I be expected to support their flimsy world view?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 12:31:50 PM
I have yet to see any proof that light indeeds travel at the speed claimed through the space medium.
What is this "space medium" of which you speak?  As I understand it, a vacuum is the lack of medium.

This claim is not mine but that of the round earthers in this thread and elsewhere. As pointed out by them earlier, why should I be expected to support their flimsy world view?
I don't expect you to support someone else's worldview.  However, it would be refreshing if you would support your own worldview with some evidence.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 12:59:11 PM
I have yet to see any proof that light indeeds travel at the speed claimed through the space medium.
What is this "space medium" of which you speak?  As I understand it, a vacuum is the lack of medium.

This claim is not mine but that of the round earthers in this thread and elsewhere. As pointed out by them earlier, why should I be expected to support their flimsy world view?
I don't expect you to support someone else's worldview.  However, it would be refreshing if you would support your own worldview with some evidence.
My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 01:23:49 PM
My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
Well, you could start by telling us what you believe that this "space medium" is and why you think that it might have optical properties different from a near perfect vacuum.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:24:41 PM
My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
Well, you could start by telling us what you believe that this "space medium" is and why you think that it might have optical properties different from a near perfect vacuum.
I have no idea what it is. This would lead me to believe I have no idea what its optical properties are, and therefore cannot trust them to be like a vacuum or anything else.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 10, 2020, 01:25:29 PM
A perfect vacuum is an absolute condition, and it is what I'm referring to. Of course, such a vacuum is impossible again showing how silly round earth physics really is.
There is only one physics.

Is there an accurate map you can point to?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 10, 2020, 01:27:09 PM
My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
Well, you could start by telling us what you believe that this "space medium" is and why you think that it might have optical properties different from a near perfect vacuum.
I have no idea what it is. This would lead me to believe I have no idea what its optical properties are, and therefore cannot trust them to be like a vacuum or anything else.
You may not know, but others do, investigate.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:28:21 PM
A perfect vacuum is an absolute condition, and it is what I'm referring to. Of course, such a vacuum is impossible again showing how silly round earth physics really is.
There is only one physics.

Is there an accurate map you can point to?
A globe is an appropriate projection of the non-euclidean flat earth onto a rounded non-euclidean surface.

What do you mean "there is only one physics" and can you support that axiom or am I to take your word on it?

My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
Well, you could start by telling us what you believe that this "space medium" is and why you think that it might have optical properties different from a near perfect vacuum.
I have no idea what it is. This would lead me to believe I have no idea what its optical properties are, and therefore cannot trust them to be like a vacuum or anything else.
You may not know, but others do, investigate.
Again, I see no need to support your argument for you. Surely if there was evidence, you could provide it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
My own worldview would say we don't know the speed of light in the space medium. How do you expect me provide evidence for us not having evidence?
And your worldview seems to be to ignore any evidence contrary to your world view.

Have you forgotten the earlier reply to YOU that I've quoted below[1]?

In it, I show that the distance to the moon has been measured by means quite independent of the velocity of light.
The most recent of those using parallax measurements by Astronomers O'Keefe and Anderson refined by "refined by in 1962 by Irene Fischer, who incorporated updated geodetic data to produce a value of 384403.7±2 km."

So the distance to the moon using laser ranging agrees with the distance measured by parallax to within ±2 km in 384,403.7 km.
That's within one part in almost 200,000.

Provided that you include the space between here the moon as "space medium" I'd claim that the speed of light in the space medium is known.

But "The Bishop Challenge" is about the justification of the claim in the Wiki:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Would you care to justify that claim?

[1]
The astronomer has as much idea of distance to his studied objects, as does a mortician who has never seen a dead man.
Really? This is just from Wikipedia to save time over something you will debunk simply with argumentum ad absurdum
Quote from: 'Wikipedia
Lunar distance, History of measurement
Lunar eclipse   
Early attempts to measure the distance to the Moon exploited observations of a lunar eclipse combined with knowledge of Earth's radius and an understanding that the Sun is much further than the Moon. By observing the geometry of a lunar eclipse, the lunar distance can be calculated using trigonometry.

The earliest account of an attempt to measure the distance to the Moon using this technique was by the 4th-century-BC Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos and later by Hipparchus, whose calculations produced a result of 59-67 R. This method later found its way into the work of Ptolemy, who produced a result of 64 1/6 R at its farthest point.
The estimates of Aristarchus of Samos put the distance as 377,000 to 427,000 km and that of Ptolemy 408,000 km at farthest point.
The current values are perigee of 363,300 and apogee of 405,500 km.

I would not criticise those old astronomers for these measurements with nothing but the unaided eye and at the most, a quadrant.

Then to
Quote
An expedition by French astronomer A.C.D Crommelin observed meridional transits of the Moon (the moment when the Moon crosses an imaginary great circle that passes directly overhead and through the poles) on the same night from two different locations. Careful measurements from 1905 through 1910 measured the angle of elevation at the moment when a specific lunar crater (Mösting A) crossed the meridian, from stations at Greenwich and at Cape of Good Hope, which share nearly the same longitude. A distance was calculated with an uncertainty of ± 30 km and remained the definitive lunar distance value for the next half-century.
And
Quote
Astronomers O'Keefe and Anderson calculated the lunar distance by observing 4 occultations from 9 locations in 1952. They calculated a mean distance of 384407.6±4.7 km, however, the value was refined by in 1962 by Irene Fischer, who incorporated updated geodetic data to produce a value of 384403.7±2 km.

Those old astronomers seemed to have a pretty good idea of distances, far better and far more consistent than any flat earthers.
And the newer ones with much more precise equipment seem able to get correspondingly precise measurements.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 01:45:43 PM
Is there an accurate map you can point to?
A globe is an appropriate projection of the non-euclidean flat earth onto a rounded non-euclidean surface.
Where is your evidence of this "non-euclidean flat earth"?

Is it any more than the surface of Globe can be looked on as a non-Euclidean 2D space? In other words, the Globe as we know it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:47:22 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 02:14:06 PM
Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.
I see a heap big coincidence here.

You say that it is an assumption that the "that it does not affect the speed or path of light".
Why is it then that all the different methods of measuring the distance to the moon give consistent results?
That seems to be a massive coincidence.

You seem to be subscribing to logic similar to Tom Bishop's Bendy Light Hypotheses - he assumes an "Electromagnetic Accelerator" that magically bends light from the Sun, Moon, planets and stars to exactly match that observed.
Yet these observations fit what would be expected for the Globe.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

That is the topic!

And if we do not know any of these things why can you assume that the Earth is flat?
Just because you don't know and claim that you cannot know these things is not the slightest reason to assume that the Earth if flat.

I think I'll stick with the simple explanations that don't need the amazing coincidences needed for the ideas proposed by you or Tom Bishop.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 02:49:11 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.
Why would you doubt a methodology that has not been shown to be wrong?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 10, 2020, 02:49:34 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.

So youre saying you have rwason to believe theres a space medium, but no ones observed it or measured it or observed things in it behaving differently than if they were in theatmosphere.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 10, 2020, 03:36:39 PM
Read the thread.
Unless you are appealing to a tiny variation, or your "heavy support" is wild speculation, I see nothing in the thread offering this support.
Perhaps you can clearly point it out.

I also noticed you ignored the fact that even a tape measure isn't a direct measurement.

A globe is an appropriate projection of the non-euclidean flat earth onto a rounded non-euclidean surface.
You mean an appropriate model of the non-flat and therefore round Earth, onto a round surface?

Why not just stick to simple terms?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 03:41:34 PM
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.
The speed of light is about 300,000 km/s in the middle of my living room.  But I have no measurement of its speed near the ceiling.  What could it be?  I have no idea.  I just can't fathom any way of guessing.  There's no way to calculate it.  Speculation is pointless.  There's just no way to know without direct measurement, and I don't have fixtures to attach lasers to my ceiling.  We'll never know what it could be.  The speed of light near the ceiling of my living room will be a zetetic mystery forever.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 04:11:37 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.
Why would you doubt a methodology that has not been shown to be wrong?
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 04:14:51 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.

So youre saying you have rwason to believe theres a space medium, but no ones observed it or measured it or observed things in it behaving differently than if they were in theatmosphere.
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties, aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simply enough to show this.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 04:24:57 PM
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 04:29:22 PM
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on January 10, 2020, 04:39:38 PM
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.

Bollocks.  There’s plenty of studies into how light travels outside the atmosphere.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 04:54:02 PM
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.
Where have flat Earthers "studied . . . .  how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere"? If you have no evidence your claim is worthless.

But that is still no answer to the "Bishop Challenge" of explaining how the Flat Earth Society can claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


Presumably the Moon is not "within the atmoplane / atmosphere" so where is the Flat Earth Society''s evidence for this "The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth"?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 10, 2020, 05:50:06 PM
Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.

So youre saying you have rwason to believe theres a space medium, but no ones observed it or measured it or observed things in it behaving differently than if they were in theatmosphere.
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties, aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simply enough to show this.

Thats no argument....
If team round cant be trusted then you need your own (team flat) percieved change to light that would lead you to believe something is there.
Like throwing a spear at a fish and missing.

So far team flat has sandos studies claiming ether.
But he fails because he uses team round numbers (reminder, we cant be trusted)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.

Bollocks.  There’s plenty of studies into how light travels outside the atmosphere.


Really? Because I've been asking for evidence for what? Two pages? And all people have done is try to misattribute the burden of proof to me for their claims, insult me, and presented strawmen. By gosh, if you had actual evidence I'd love to see it.

Then for all you know, the optical properties of your "space medium" could be no different than those of a near perfect vacuum and this whole discussion is moot.
It could be. Or it could not be. Unless it can be shown that it is, why would I accept a methodology that makes use of that same fact that hasn't been shown.

Rab, the example you give makes the same assumptions about space - that it does not affect the speed or path of light - as it uses occultations to try to discern distance. Unless it can be shown that this is a valid assumption, which no one seems brave enough to even attempt, it is extremely suspect.

So youre saying you have rwason to believe theres a space medium, but no ones observed it or measured it or observed things in it behaving differently than if they were in theatmosphere.
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties, aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simply enough to show this.

Thats no argument....
If team round cant be trusted then you need your own (team flat) percieved change to light that would lead you to believe something is there.
Like throwing a spear at a fish and missing.

So far team flat has sandos studies claiming ether.
But he fails because he uses team round numbers (reminder, we cant be trusted)
You are right. Claiming to know the properties of space and having no direct evidence to back this up is no argument. Did you care to supply me with a better one?

It hasn't been shown to be correct either. Why would I trust methodology that hasn't been shown to be correct? Especially when its proponents (the round earthers in this thread included) have failed to justify its correctness.
Why then, would we trust any of the evidence for a flat Earth?
Most the claimed evidence for the flat Earth also seems assume that light travels in straight lines.

But I have to ask again, how can the Flat Earth Society claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.
Where have flat Earthers "studied . . . .  how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere"? If you have no evidence your claim is worthless.

But that is still no answer to the "Bishop Challenge" of explaining how the Flat Earth Society can claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


Presumably the Moon is not "within the atmoplane / atmosphere" so where is the Flat Earth Society''s evidence for this "The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth"?
Man has studied how light acts within the atmosphere for the entirity of their existence, rab. It's literally everything they see. I don't see the need to divide such a basic study alongst lines of belief concerning the shape of earth; do you?

If I recall correctly, the evidence for those values are from Earth: Not A Globe as well as several other publications that peer reviewed it at the time (and since) and came to similar results.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Yes on January 10, 2020, 06:28:44 PM
Man has studied how light acts within the atmosphere for the entirity of their existence, rab.
Can you imagine the look on Alex de Souza's face when he discovers all of humanity's studies of light outside the atmosphere?  He must be so excited!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 10, 2020, 07:15:33 PM
Man has studied how light acts within the atmosphere for the entirity of their existence, rab. It's literally everything they see. I don't see the need to divide such a basic study alongst lines of belief concerning the shape of earth; do you?
Sure, I believe that light in a homogenous medium travels in straight lines etc - but where is it proven over long distances?
But I wish someone would convince certain flat Earthers of that!
That piece of "evidence" did not originally Except that we don't put any weight of the simple claim that Aristotle said that ships disappear behind the horizon.
Many have gone out and done the investigation and found that:

How much is hidden depends directly on the height of the observer.
How much is hidden depends directly on the distance to the target.
For a given observer height the amount hidden does vary with the atmospheric conditions and this fits with know ideas on refraction near the surface.
etc.

That's still observation and interpretation. If light is curving, all of that would apply. None of what you posted is experimental investigation of nature.

Recall also that astronomy also proposes that light is permanently curving through astronomical refraction. Straight light isn't default.

Now I would be quite prepared to accept that in the atmosphere light travels in almost straight lines, apart from slight diffraction caused by variations in the density because that is what I have accepted all along.
I wish someone could convince Tom Bishop that he cannot just assume that light bends exactly the right amount to fit his ideas..

Quote from: John Davis
If I recall correctly, the evidence for those values are from Earth: Not A Globe as well as several other publications that peer reviewed it at the time (and since) and came to similar results.
Well, you recall incorrectly! Here is exactly what Rowbotham said in Earth not A Globe:
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, Earth is Not a Globe (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.
IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; ]so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles.

Rowbotham claimed "that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles!
Would you agree that Rowbotham assumed that light travels in straight lines in his attempt to measure the "THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN"?

So it would appear that you still no answer to the "Bishop Challenge" of explaining how the Flat Earth Society can claim that
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.


Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2020, 08:34:06 PM
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties, aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.
So you're saying that hundreds of manned space missions and countless unmanned satellites, space probes and sounding rockets have learned nothing at all about about the "space medium"? ???

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simply enough to show this.
If only there was some way to send scientific equipment above the atmoplane to explore space. ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Macarios on January 10, 2020, 09:46:02 PM
Laser measuring the distance would be indirect measurement
A tape measure being lined up by sight would be an indirect measurement as it relies upon lining up the tape measure, and relies upon the tape measure being accurate.
Who knows, maybe there is a distortion of space which contracts the tape measure.

it is not known that light travels the same speed through the space medium as it does through a vacuum. In fact, it's heavily supported that it does not.
Care to provide some of this heavy support?
Read the thread.

Would you like to share this "heavy support" with the rest of the class?
Yes. The space medium, and specifically the interplanetary medium, is not a vacuum to start with - it's supposedly plasma and dust.
Just your words with no references and not even any orders of magnitude as to the values involved.

Quote from: John Davis
One can note this by looking at a false dawn.
Whatever the density of the dust particles causing a false dawn or Zodiacal light, it seems to put the kibosh on any thoughts of a flat Earth with a nearby Sun and stars.
All you need to know: Zodiacal light (https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/everything-you-need-to-know-zodiacal-light-or-false-dawn)

Quote from: John Davis
Much work has been done in the larger scope of things around studying whether the speed of light is constant in the space medium, if it suffers from dispersive extinction which could explain red shift, and if the permiability and permiativity of space is what we suspect. Those last two values determine, specifically, the speed of light through its medium.
Sure, the permeability and permittivity determine the velocity of light but where is your evidence that the permeability and permittivity of space differ measurably from the permittivity of a vacuum.

In a topic like this, relative values are extremely important.
To show my point, it is enough to show that space is not a vacuum.

How much of a "not vacuum" the Space is, if there is about one particle per cubic centimeter there? :)
Meanwhile, there are about 2.6 x 1019 molecules in every cubic centimeter of air.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 11:32:59 AM
But you cannot measure the need to continue a conversation with someone who is claiming you are a troll.  So how do we know if it exists or not?

One possibility is to check if it's consistent with all analogous measurements and verifiable physical theory.  But I know that is not the zetetic way.  Zetetics are not allowed to use any prior knowledge nor allowed to verify theory (at least according to this admin (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48821.0)).  Unfortunately, I guess that's all we've got until you can measure it.  And then prove you've measured it.  And then measure the proof.
Again, I am not continuing any conversation I have with you, and will not respond in the future to you in any meaningful way.

Now are there any other round earthers that have any valid points to make? This seems like a clear cut win for Bishop.

Hold your horses, Mr Davis. Mr. Bishop cut and run a  long long time ago with his tail covering the new one I had ripped for him. He presented a challenge, I accepted and then proceeded to completely wipe the floor with him.
You can take his place for a round two, to see how you can do.
One question before I start, given you have no flat earth astronomers, have never been into space or have no way of studying it apart from using visible light, which is very limiting, puts you in the mid-1700s era of knowledge. How is it you formulate your ideas on the solar system? Us people who subscribe to modern technology have you beaten out of a cocked hat when it comes to knowing stuff.
Back to the challenge. I presented the late and defeated Mr Bishop with a challenge regarding the moon. The challenge, which he failed, was for him to provide the distance to the moon and for a bonus point its diameter, showing all workings and methodology. He failed because he did neither and tried to take the discussion off-topic which was, by his own rules cause for losing the argument. Lets see what you are made off when it comes to all things lunar. I know infinity is not your strongest point, but who knows the moon maybe your thing.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 11, 2020, 12:49:55 PM
John davis quote:

You are right. Claiming to know the properties of space and having no direct evidence to back this up is no argument. Did you care to supply me with a better one?

Sorry
This was your point that you made.
Provide your own flat side.
Stahs macros jackB and rab do more than enough.

You produced a statement "light travels differently through space medium" implying that
1.
Youve seen light behave differently as it travelled between x-y causing you to believe refraction had occured.
2.
There is a medium at some hieght above the earth that you can say is a minimum distance away from sea level.


Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 01:14:50 PM
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely?
Well based upon simple extrapolation it would, just getting thinner and thinner.
Unless there was some other very large, significant object then it should continue to exist.


The more important question would be what is keeping this space medium from Earth?

You also now seem to have switched from rejecting there being a vacuum there, to it not being the atmosphere.

We know next to nothing about its properties, aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.
You mean except from all the evidence obtained by various space agencies and other observations, which Team Flat need to reject because otherwise it would mean Earth isn't flat.

Ignoring things or rejecting them doesn't make them wild unsupported claims, or mean that we (as in humanity) know nothing about it.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simply enough to show this.
You mean like it and other methods determining quite similar distances?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 11, 2020, 02:49:02 PM
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties,
That is completely untrue, we know plenty about the properties of the upper atmosphere, the transition to "space" and even interplanetary space and can infer a great deal about interstellar and intergalactic space by indirect means.
But we also know that flat Earthers will instantly claim that the methods of obtaining the extreme altitude information are "fake"!

Hence we try not to rely on such information until flat Earthers start making such inconsistent claims such as assuming that light travels in straight lines when it fits their hypotheses and denying it at other times.

So we know that:
Up to 100,000 ft (30,480 m) or so measurements of atmospheric properties have been routinely found from high-altitude balloons.
Above that the earliest measurements were from sounding rockets as described in:
      The History of Sounding Rockets and Their Contribution to European Space Research by Günther Seibert (http://www.esa.int/esapub/hsr/HSR_38.pdf)
      Rocket-borne in-situ measurements in the middle atmosphere by Jonas Hedin (https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:200309/FULLTEXT01.pdf)

And this summarises the properties of the "Standard Atmosphere" up to 80,000 metres:
      Engineering ToolBox: U.S. Standard Atmosphere (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
Then, based on those sounding rocket and later measurements there is the:
      MSISE-90 Model of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (http://ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES)

So, we know more than enough about the transition between between the atmosphere and "space".

When dealing with the refractive index (n) of gases the value is so close to unity that refractivity (N), defined as N = (n - 1) x 106 is commonly used simply to make the numbers easier to read.
So, for example, air at sea-level has a refractive index of about 1.000277 so its refractivity would be 277.

The refractivity of a given type of gas if very nearly proportional to its density and the tables linked above give the densities at each altitude.

Hence the refractivity, refractive index and hence to the velocity of light compared to a perfect vacuum can readily be found at any altitude up to 35,786 km, the approximate altitude of geostationary satellites.
I'll let the reader work out the details.

Quote from: John Davis
aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simple enough to show this.
I'd say that I have!

And your patron Saint Samuel Birley Rowbotham assumes "that space does not affect light's path" in his "Measure of the True Height of the Sun" and he "measured" it to be not more than 700 statute miles.

Glen Voliva also did his "measurement" by again assuming "that space does not affect light's path" with this:
Quote from: Dave Thomas
On the Flat Earth, How High is the Sun? (http://www.nmsr.org/flatter4.htm#voliva)
Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870-1942) was the first radio evangelist, and a major proponent of the Flat Earth, offering $5000 for anyone who could disprove his flat earth theory.

This image is from the article "$5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe" (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931), which is available online at the Flat Earth Society. This graphic shows that, on the Equinox, an observer at 45 degrees north latitude would see the Sun at an elevation angle of 45 degrees. This makes sense in the globe model, where the sun is many millions of miles away, but can also be interpreted as the sun being small and nearby, being at the same distance (3000 miles) from the Equator that the Sun is above the earth (making a 45-degree right triangle).
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbmipgfwhn4gwlm/Voliva%2C%20flat-vs-globe.jpg?dl=1)
<< More details in the link. >>
The above is also in Distance to the Sun: Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun).
So Glen Voliva  "measured" it to be 3000 miles - who is right? I'd say it can easily be shown that neither are correct even over a flat Earth.

But it seems acceptable for flat Earthers to assume that light travels in straight lines when it suits them but not others.

I guess flat Earthers need these inconsistencies and this ignorance of their own choosing to support their hypotheses.

Now when will some flat Earther address "The Bishop Challenge" of proving that:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

as claimed in the FE Wiki?

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 11, 2020, 09:42:24 PM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 11, 2020, 11:04:37 PM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.
No, not "when it suits them" but light gets bendy when moving from one medium to another with a different refractive index.

Moving from air at STP (0°C and 101.3kPa) with a refractive index of 1.00029 to the near vacuum makes light "get bendy" by only about 0.5° even for astronomical objects appearing right on the horizon.

That's not in the same ball-park as the flat-Earthers "bendy light" hypothesis:
Quote from: TFES Wiki
Electromagnetic Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration)
The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards. All light curves upwards over very long distances. The Electromagnetic Accelerator has been adopted as a modern alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe.

Sunrise and sunset happen as result of these upwardly curving light rays.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/bf/Electromagnetic_Accelerator.gif)
Note that it simply "states that there is a mechanism" - no real evidence and
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” by Carl Sagan.
But there is no extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 11, 2020, 11:20:08 PM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.

Feel free to post a sunset on the ocean on a humid summer day and a dry winter showing your flat magic "refraction causes the bottom to disappear".
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 11, 2020, 11:59:54 PM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.

Feel free to post a sunset on the ocean on a humid summer day and a dry winter showing your flat magic "refraction causes the bottom to disappear".

Bendy light according to round earth doctrine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg/260px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 12, 2020, 01:29:49 AM
Doesnt look like a sunset to me.
Try again.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 12, 2020, 01:37:21 AM
Doesnt look like a sunset to me.
Try again.

I wasn't talking about sunsets. I was referring to rabs comment:

Quote
But it seems acceptable for flat Earthers to assume that light travels in straight lines when it suits them but not others.[/img]

It seems acceptable for round earthers too does it not? At the least you would think both sides would agree on this

So maybe round earthers here should not be so quick to dismiss the 'bendy light' as some kind of preposterous notion. Light can and does bend.

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 03:12:38 AM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.

Bendy light according to round earth doctrine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg/260px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg)
Totally irrelevant!

That is not "bendy light according to "anybody's "earth doctrine". The image wasn't produced using light.

That image was from the Event Horizon Telescope Global array of sub-millimetre radio-telescopes enabling "very-long-baseline interferometry at 230–450 GHz."

And what happens 5.06 × 1020 km away has nothing to do with the theory of the Heliocentric Solar System. Leave that to the Cosmologists.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 12, 2020, 03:27:06 AM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.

Bendy light according to round earth doctrine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg/260px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg)
Totally irrelevant!

That is not "bendy light according to "anybody's "earth doctrine". The image wasn't produced using light.

That image was from the Event Horizon Telescope Global array of sub-millimetre radio-telescopes enabling "very-long-baseline interferometry at 230–450 GHz."

And what happens 5.06 × 1020 km away has nothing to do with the theory of the Heliocentric Solar System. Leave that to the Cosmologists.

Some bedtime reading for you
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/


Some more reading. About black holes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

You've got like 30 minutes before your self imposed bedtime of 10PM. Go!
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 03:40:16 AM
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.

Bendy light according to round earth doctrine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg/260px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg)
Totally irrelevant!

That is not "bendy light according to "anybody's "earth doctrine". The image wasn't produced using light.

That image was from the Event Horizon Telescope Global array of sub-millimetre radio-telescopes enabling "very-long-baseline interferometry at 230–450 GHz."

And what happens 5.06 × 1020 km away has nothing to do with the theory of the Heliocentric Solar System. Leave that to the Cosmologists.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/

Some more reading. About black holes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
I know all that but it has nothing to do with "bendy light" in the context of this thread.

Quote from: Shifter
You've got like 30 minutes before your self imposed bedtime of 10PM.
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 12, 2020, 03:50:01 AM
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

Check your time again! I don't usually go to bed before 10 PM.

 ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 04:11:22 AM
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 12, 2020, 04:16:22 AM
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

Settle down. Please dont get bitter and be grumpy to your wife or you'll be on the couch again!  I simply suggested you read the links before you go to bed. The links had some useful information. For you and the readers of this thread

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Obviously you guys dont like to be 'shown up'  ::)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 05:00:00 AM
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Because "bendy light" in real science has a logical basis, be it the very small refraction in air to much larger bending in prisms and lenses.

The "bendy light" in Tom Bishop's hypothesis was just manufactured to make his never-setting sun appear to set, moon phases to look as they should etc.

Just look at the typical astronomical refraction when light comes from space into atmosphere:
     34.5 minutes of arc when on the horizon,
      5.3 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon and
      2.6 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon.
And that is from a cause that has been measured and researched for centuries.

Now, look at that massive amount of "bending" that "The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states" with no supporting evidence!
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/bf/Electromagnetic_Accelerator.gif)

Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Shifter on January 12, 2020, 05:27:46 AM
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Because "bendy light" in real science has a logical basis, be it the very small refraction in air to much larger bending in prisms and lenses.

The "bendy light" in Tom Bishop's hypothesis was just manufactured to make his never-setting sun appear to set, moon phases to look as they should etc.

Just look at the typical astronomical refraction when light comes from space into atmosphere:
     34.5 minutes of arc when on the horizon,
      5.3 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon and
      2.6 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon.
And that is from a cause that has been measured and researched for centuries.

Now, look at that massive amount of "bending" that "The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states" with no supporting evidence!
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/bf/Electromagnetic_Accelerator.gif)

Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Ok. I think you've earned a rest  ;D
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on January 12, 2020, 07:02:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis
We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.

Bollocks.  There’s plenty of studies into how light travels outside the atmosphere.
Really? Because I've been asking for evidence for what? Two pages? And all people have done is try to misattribute the burden of proof to me for their claims, insult me, and presented strawmen. By gosh, if you had actual evidence I'd love to see it.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


Nobody needs to tell you how to back up your own claim.

You’re pulling the same crap as Shifter earlier.  He was demanding other people tell him the exact distance to the moon right now (or rather right then), when he was the only person claiming it was relevant.

Now you have claimed that the speed of light in interplanetary space is significant, and are demanding others tell you how to work it out. 

Lazy, and lacking in both intellectual honesty and curiosity.  But, since I’m feeling super helpful, here’s a starter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/04/05/astroquizzical-speed-of-light-tests/

I made no such claim. As quoted above, I have made the claim that we don't know whether it is significant or not. If anything, you lot have made the unsupported implicit claim that it is not significant. Then you asked me to tell you the speed difference without using any type of measurement.

Honestly, I can't remember when I've seen a more ridiculous stance to take.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 12, 2020, 07:25:19 AM
Doesnt look like a sunset to me.
Try again.

I wasn't talking about sunsets. I was referring to rabs comment:

Quote
But it seems acceptable for flat Earthers to assume that light travels in straight lines when it suits them but not others.[/img]

It seems acceptable for round earthers too does it not? At the least you would think both sides would agree on this

So maybe round earthers here should not be so quick to dismiss the 'bendy light' as some kind of preposterous notion. Light can and does bend.

I was though.
You must have responded to the wrong post then.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Ok. I think you've earned a rest  ;D
:) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 14, 2020, 09:47:27 AM
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties,
That is completely untrue, we know plenty about the properties of the upper atmosphere, the transition to "space" and even interplanetary space and can infer a great deal about interstellar and intergalactic space by indirect means.
But we also know that flat Earthers will instantly claim that the methods of obtaining the extreme altitude information are "fake"!

Hence we try not to rely on such information until flat Earthers start making such inconsistent claims such as assuming that light travels in straight lines when it fits their hypotheses and denying it at other times.

So we know that:
Up to 100,000 ft (30,480 m) or so measurements of atmospheric properties have been routinely found from high-altitude balloons.
Above that the earliest measurements were from sounding rockets as described in:
      The History of Sounding Rockets and Their Contribution to European Space Research by Günther Seibert (http://www.esa.int/esapub/hsr/HSR_38.pdf)
      Rocket-borne in-situ measurements in the middle atmosphere by Jonas Hedin (https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:200309/FULLTEXT01.pdf)

And this summarises the properties of the "Standard Atmosphere" up to 80,000 metres:
      Engineering ToolBox: U.S. Standard Atmosphere (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
Then, based on those sounding rocket and later measurements there is the:
      MSISE-90 Model of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (http://ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES)

So, we know more than enough about the transition between between the atmosphere and "space".

When dealing with the refractive index (n) of gases the value is so close to unity that refractivity (N), defined as N = (n - 1) x 106 is commonly used simply to make the numbers easier to read.
So, for example, air at sea-level has a refractive index of about 1.000277 so its refractivity would be 277.

The refractivity of a given type of gas if very nearly proportional to its density and the tables linked above give the densities at each altitude.

Hence the refractivity, refractive index and hence to the velocity of light compared to a perfect vacuum can readily be found at any altitude up to 35,786 km, the approximate altitude of geostationary satellites.
I'll let the reader work out the details.

Quote from: John Davis
aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simple enough to show this.
I'd say that I have!

And your patron Saint Samuel Birley Rowbotham assumes "that space does not affect light's path" in his "Measure of the True Height of the Sun" and he "measured" it to be not more than 700 statute miles.

Glen Voliva also did his "measurement" by again assuming "that space does not affect light's path" with this:
Quote from: Dave Thomas
On the Flat Earth, How High is the Sun? (http://www.nmsr.org/flatter4.htm#voliva)
Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870-1942) was the first radio evangelist, and a major proponent of the Flat Earth, offering $5000 for anyone who could disprove his flat earth theory.

This image is from the article "$5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe" (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931), which is available online at the Flat Earth Society. This graphic shows that, on the Equinox, an observer at 45 degrees north latitude would see the Sun at an elevation angle of 45 degrees. This makes sense in the globe model, where the sun is many millions of miles away, but can also be interpreted as the sun being small and nearby, being at the same distance (3000 miles) from the Equator that the Sun is above the earth (making a 45-degree right triangle).
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbmipgfwhn4gwlm/Voliva%2C%20flat-vs-globe.jpg?dl=1)
<< More details in the link. >>
The above is also in Distance to the Sun: Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun).
So Glen Voliva  "measured" it to be 3000 miles - who is right? I'd say it can easily be shown that neither are correct even over a flat Earth.

But it seems acceptable for flat Earthers to assume that light travels in straight lines when it suits them but not others.

I guess flat Earthers need these inconsistencies and this ignorance of their own choosing to support their hypotheses.

Now when will some flat Earther address "The Bishop Challenge" of proving that:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

as claimed in the FE Wiki?


Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.

Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect - there is no direct evidence of this being the case. As such, any number of unknowns poison this well and any experiments referenced if they were being honest would report a null result.



Quote from: John Davis
We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.

Bollocks.  There’s plenty of studies into how light travels outside the atmosphere.
Really? Because I've been asking for evidence for what? Two pages? And all people have done is try to misattribute the burden of proof to me for their claims, insult me, and presented strawmen. By gosh, if you had actual evidence I'd love to see it.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


Nobody needs to tell you how to back up your own claim.

You’re pulling the same crap as Shifter earlier.  He was demanding other people tell him the exact distance to the moon right now (or rather right then), when he was the only person claiming it was relevant.

Now you have claimed that the speed of light in interplanetary space is significant, and are demanding others tell you how to work it out. 

Lazy, and lacking in both intellectual honesty and curiosity.  But, since I’m feeling super helpful, here’s a starter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/04/05/astroquizzical-speed-of-light-tests/

I made no such claim. As quoted above, I have made the claim that we don't know whether it is significant or not. If anything, you lot have made the unsupported implicit claim that it is not significant. Then you asked me to tell you the speed difference without using any type of measurement.

Honestly, I can't remember when I've seen a more ridiculous stance to take.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.
I'm not seeing any direct measurements there. If you can't back up your belief aside from coherency within it, then you might as well be writing science fiction. Perhaps I missed it; mind citing it directly?

Why do you "have good reason to believe" space is a vacuum? And that it also doesn't have other properties?

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'

You have shown plenty of correlation. You have not shown any cause, or any direct measurement to support your correlation.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on January 14, 2020, 09:47:48 AM
I'll try to find some time to reply to other comments here. Its a bit of a busy week.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 14, 2020, 10:05:04 AM
Inferred?
The limitations of high alt weather balloons would say otherwise.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 14, 2020, 01:25:02 PM
Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.
No, he made a very big assumption which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, that Earth was flat.

Then there is the assumption you always REers over, even though it is quite rational to conclude, that light travels in geodesics except when passing through an interface between mediums causing refraction.

But then to explain countless other issues he needs all sorts of assumptions to magically prop it up.

Meanwhile, the RE one only relies upon light travelling in geodesics.

Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect
I would say the vast majority is quite direct.

If you want to appeal to it being inferred and indirect then it is only appropriate apply that label to basically everything, especially everything allegedly propping up a FE.

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'
You mean it has been a huge exercise in coming up with excuses to deny reality?

Again, just what direct measurement would there be? Even using a tape measure would be indirect and rely upon the same kind of assumptions.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on January 14, 2020, 02:19:34 PM
Do you think the atmoplane / atmosphere extends indefinitely? No? Then there must be some sort of space medium. We know next to nothing about its properties,
That is completely untrue, we know plenty about the properties of the upper atmosphere, the transition to "space" and even interplanetary space and can infer a great deal about interstellar and intergalactic space by indirect means.
But we also know that flat Earthers will instantly claim that the methods of obtaining the extreme altitude information are "fake"!

Hence we try not to rely on such information until flat Earthers start making such inconsistent claims such as assuming that light travels in straight lines when it fits their hypotheses and denying it at other times.

So we know that:
Up to 100,000 ft (30,480 m) or so measurements of atmospheric properties have been routinely found from high-altitude balloons.
Above that the earliest measurements were from sounding rockets as described in:
      The History of Sounding Rockets and Their Contribution to European Space Research by Günther Seibert (http://www.esa.int/esapub/hsr/HSR_38.pdf)
      Rocket-borne in-situ measurements in the middle atmosphere by Jonas Hedin (https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:200309/FULLTEXT01.pdf)

And this summarises the properties of the "Standard Atmosphere" up to 80,000 metres:
      Engineering ToolBox: U.S. Standard Atmosphere (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
Then, based on those sounding rocket and later measurements there is the:
      MSISE-90 Model of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (http://ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES)

So, we know more than enough about the transition between between the atmosphere and "space".

When dealing with the refractive index (n) of gases the value is so close to unity that refractivity (N), defined as N = (n - 1) x 106 is commonly used simply to make the numbers easier to read.
So, for example, air at sea-level has a refractive index of about 1.000277 so its refractivity would be 277.

The refractivity of a given type of gas if very nearly proportional to its density and the tables linked above give the densities at each altitude.

Hence the refractivity, refractive index and hence to the velocity of light compared to a perfect vacuum can readily be found at any altitude up to 35,786 km, the approximate altitude of geostationary satellites.
I'll let the reader work out the details.

Quote from: John Davis
aside from the wild unsupported claims given by Team Round.

If its so clear that space does not affect light's path or its speed, then it should be simple enough to show this.
I'd say that I have!

And your patron Saint Samuel Birley Rowbotham assumes "that space does not affect light's path" in his "Measure of the True Height of the Sun" and he "measured" it to be not more than 700 statute miles.

Glen Voliva also did his "measurement" by again assuming "that space does not affect light's path" with this:
Quote from: Dave Thomas
On the Flat Earth, How High is the Sun? (http://www.nmsr.org/flatter4.htm#voliva)
Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870-1942) was the first radio evangelist, and a major proponent of the Flat Earth, offering $5000 for anyone who could disprove his flat earth theory.

This image is from the article "$5,000 for Proving the Earth is a Globe" (Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931), which is available online at the Flat Earth Society. This graphic shows that, on the Equinox, an observer at 45 degrees north latitude would see the Sun at an elevation angle of 45 degrees. This makes sense in the globe model, where the sun is many millions of miles away, but can also be interpreted as the sun being small and nearby, being at the same distance (3000 miles) from the Equator that the Sun is above the earth (making a 45-degree right triangle).
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbmipgfwhn4gwlm/Voliva%2C%20flat-vs-globe.jpg?dl=1)
<< More details in the link. >>
The above is also in Distance to the Sun: Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun).
So Glen Voliva  "measured" it to be 3000 miles - who is right? I'd say it can easily be shown that neither are correct even over a flat Earth.

But it seems acceptable for flat Earthers to assume that light travels in straight lines when it suits them but not others.

I guess flat Earthers need these inconsistencies and this ignorance of their own choosing to support their hypotheses.

Now when will some flat Earther address "The Bishop Challenge" of proving that:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

as claimed in the FE Wiki?

Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.
So, on what basis can you assert that "Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it"?
[/li][/list]

In any case, being inside the "dome" hardly justifies, "He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth."
Surely being 700 or 3000 miles above the Earth cannot possibly be classed as being "anywhere on earth"?

Quote from: John Davis
Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect - there is no direct evidence of this being the case. As such, any number of unknowns poison this well and any experiments referenced if they were being honest would report a null result.
And exactly the same would apply to all the flat-Earth claims about the heights of the Sun, Moon and stars.

So I must repeat again! When will some flat Earther address "The Bishop Challenge" of proving that:
Quote
The Moon
The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

as claimed in the FE Wiki?

That is the topic that no flat-Earther will address.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2020, 02:49:32 PM
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: MouseWalker on January 14, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
Please explain, the Failure in the explanation of the moon phases.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on January 14, 2020, 03:01:48 PM
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
How about measured distances, travel times, path of the sun, satellite operation, accurate maps using projections, WGS84 model?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on January 14, 2020, 03:41:02 PM
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.

I thought the challenge was to produce how you calc the moon size and distance.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on January 15, 2020, 12:18:30 AM
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.
No, it was that RE beets FE, and it succeeded wonderfully, with you fleeing as fast as possible, even running away from the topic quite early on.

It all started with the moon, with the specific topic chosen being the size and distance to the moon.
The REers can easily justify the distance and size, with the distance determined from several different methods.

FE seems to have nothing at all and instead just focused on objecting to RE by claiming everything is unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Unconvinced on January 15, 2020, 01:53:30 AM

Quote from: John Davis
We have studied and evidence how light travels within the atmoplane / atmosphere. We have not done this outside the atmoplane.

Bollocks.  There’s plenty of studies into how light travels outside the atmosphere.
Really? Because I've been asking for evidence for what? Two pages? And all people have done is try to misattribute the burden of proof to me for their claims, insult me, and presented strawmen. By gosh, if you had actual evidence I'd love to see it.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


Nobody needs to tell you how to back up your own claim.

You’re pulling the same crap as Shifter earlier.  He was demanding other people tell him the exact distance to the moon right now (or rather right then), when he was the only person claiming it was relevant.

Now you have claimed that the speed of light in interplanetary space is significant, and are demanding others tell you how to work it out. 

Lazy, and lacking in both intellectual honesty and curiosity.  But, since I’m feeling super helpful, here’s a starter:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2016/04/05/astroquizzical-speed-of-light-tests/

I made no such claim. As quoted above, I have made the claim that we don't know whether it is significant or not. If anything, you lot have made the unsupported implicit claim that it is not significant. Then you asked me to tell you the speed difference without using any type of measurement.

Honestly, I can't remember when I've seen a more ridiculous stance to take.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.
I'm not seeing any direct measurements there. If you can't back up your belief aside from coherency within it, then you might as well be writing science fiction. Perhaps I missed it; mind citing it directly?

Why do you "have good reason to believe" space is a vacuum? And that it also doesn't have other properties?

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'

You have shown plenty of correlation. You have not shown any cause, or any direct measurement to support your correlation.

Who says that indirect measurements are invalid?  That sounds like unsupported personal opinion to me.  Indirect measurements are used all over the place in science.  That often introduces extra uncertainty, but that’s fine as that is taken into account.

Basic reasons for thinking interplanetary space is a vacuum include orbits working without decaying, trajectories of spacecraft working with no resistance, astronauts needing spacesuits, etc, etc.

I admit I don’t know how scientists have determined just how high a vacuum it is.  Frankly, I’m not much inclined to waste my time searching yet another another thing just for you to dismiss it out of hand with one sentence.  It’s not necessary for this conversation anyway.  High enough vacuum for no detectable drag is good enough.

There’s a lot more than mere correlation.  An important aspect of science is consilience of evidence, where multiple independent measurements and studies arrive at the same conclusion. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

In the case of the speed of light in a vacuum, we have several different types of astronomical measurement, and several different methods of lab measurement all giving the same result.  Which means we have high confidence it’s correct.  Regarding the shape of the earth in general, there’s so much evidence from multiple strands that all fits neatly together there’s really only one conclusion.

Flat earthers on the other hand seem to rely almost exclusively on one type of (indirect) measurement, from the amount of an object visible above the horizon.  A measurement that is known to have significant variation, especially over water.  Other observations are routinely ignored, dismissed as fake or given only a vague explanation that’s often inconsistent with the other vague explanations.

It’s really not good enough, you need a model that explains everything together at least as well as the heliocentric model to be seriously considered. 

My beliefs are backed up by centuries of science, and more recently actual photos of the planet from space showing exactly what it looks like.  What are yours backed up by?

Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.

Erm.  For RE to beat FE, it needs better explanations for the available evidence.  As usual you aren’t even trying to provide FE explanations, only attempting casting doubt on RE.

Far from having ripped anyone a new one, you’ve not even started.

Now you want to change the terms.  It’s like challenging someone to a 100m race, then demanding that they beat a time of 9.6s while you sit on the sidelines.

If anything, RE wins by default.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 28, 2020, 01:59:47 AM
Let’s be clear what the original challenge was:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84214.msg2222976#msg2222976

Tom Bishop has had plenty of time to produce his near earth moon calculations and has failed to do this and as such has lost the challenge. There are sources aplenty that will provide detailed methodology on how the distance to the moon and it’s dimensions are calculated, many of them are linked in earlier posts. What is pretty conclusive is that all the different methods used all give the same answers that are directly at odds with flat earth belief. What is also pretty conclusive is flat earthers like Tom Bishop haven't a clue on how they can square their beliefs with reality. This is why no flat earth calculations were forthcoming, as there are none.

Timeisup 1. Tom Bishop 0
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 28, 2020, 02:54:28 AM
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on February 28, 2020, 03:19:33 AM
Timies quote

and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)



Probaly right here...
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Themightykabool on February 28, 2020, 03:21:02 AM
Oh   i see
TomB is playing word games.
Timies was not supposed to issue a challenge back.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Space Cowgirl on February 28, 2020, 08:42:08 AM
Stop spamming.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Mikey T. on February 28, 2020, 10:50:39 AM
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 28, 2020, 11:45:20 AM
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
You petty fool.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: JackBlack on February 28, 2020, 12:31:44 PM
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.
Did you even read the challenge in the OP, or your comment which started it all?

"Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one."

It isn't about RE justifying itself; it is about comparing and contrasting between RE and FE and seeing which is better at describing reality; it is about RE beating FE, which it has done quite well; or if FE beats RE or if they are on equal footing.

The topic chosen was the moon, specifically its size and distance.

For the RE side, there are a few different ways to determine the size and distance, some of which rely upon the other measurement. But they are consistent across Earth. They do vary with time, because the distance to the moon varies with time.

Meanwhile, the best FE can come up with is appealing to ignorance of how light behaves over such vast distances, with no real justification for why light should magically start bending to produce observations consistent with a RE.
Without that, they do have some simple experiments to determine size and/or distance, but they produce vastly different results depending on which locations are chosen.

So I would say RE vastly beats FE.

Even just a simple consideration shows that.
Based upon the fact that all of Earth that can see the moon sees roughly the same section of the moon, just rotated, but not squished or stretched, shows that the moon must be very far away, in basically the same direction for everyone. Otherwise we should be seeing it significantly differently from different locations. If the moon was round that would be different sections of the moon visible depending on angle. If the moon was flat, then it would appear squashed along one axis as you are viewing it from an angle.
So that would mean that everyone sees it from basically the same angle, which means it must be quite some distance away from Earth, many times the size of Earth.
This then means in order to explain the apparent difference in direction, the reference, i.e. Earth's surface, must be different in different locations, i.e. Earth must be round.

So we have a RE, with simple physics, or a FE with completely unsubstantiated magic bendy light to produce observations which are consistent with a RE.

I would say that is RE beating FE.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 12:59:08 PM
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
You petty fool.
Enjoy your ban.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 28, 2020, 01:09:44 PM
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.

If I could remind you of a couple of facts Mr. Bishop.

Fact 1 You said:-

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)


Fact 2 I said:-

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.


I take it you accepted the challenge? The challenge clearly asks for proof of your own belief that the moon is smaller and nearer to the earth than is generally accepted. You during this discussion have been reluctant to divulge the actual numbers you actually believe in. If you don't agree with the figures generally accepted then what figures do you accept? If you have other figures that you adhere to where did they come from? One would normally expect figures such as these to be arrived at through some calculation. The challenge was for you to give your own figures and explain how you came by them. I have, according to the challenge provided a number of methods used to calculate both the distance to the moon and its diameter, while you have provided nothing. What you have tried to do is pick holes in the methods I have presented in an effort to throw up a smokescreen and avoid presenting calculations and figures you don't have. You also avoided dealing with the speed of radio waves as again you have no answer to that one either.  If you had them you would have presented them, the fact you have not presented them I think indicates to the world that you haven't a clue, and due to that you lost the challenge, which is why the score on this particular challenge is:

Timeisup 1  Tom Bishop 0

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 28, 2020, 01:17:56 PM
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.

That's not what the challenge was, go back to the original post.
Your reply just indicates to the world at large you have no credible data to support your own beliefs as to the size of the moon if you did you would have provided them. If the challenge calls for comparison then we need something to use to compare. You provided nothing, which is why you lost the challenge. The score is still:-

Timeisup 1 Tom Bishop 0
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 01:23:16 PM
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 28, 2020, 01:35:33 PM
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge. I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was. It's there for all to see at the beginning of the thread. As Mr. Bishop is reluctant to present his figures, as the pre-eminent flat earth scientist, from a flat earth perspective what do you consider the size of the moon to be and its distance from the earth? As this is a pretty basic point in astronomy I would be surprised if you don't have the figures at your fingertips.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 01:36:50 PM
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge.

Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge

Quote
I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was.
I imagine it wouldn't have degraded to discussing what the challenge is if you had simply met the challenge as stated.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 28, 2020, 01:48:18 PM
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge.

Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge

Quote
I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was.
I imagine it wouldn't have degraded to discussing what the challenge is if you had simply met the challenge as stated.

Am I to understand that the FE moon size and distance a flat earth secret? As neither Mr. Bishop or your good self appear to want to divulge it.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 01:52:41 PM
As far as I can tell, he made no claim of distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy. Again, as far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 02:21:47 PM
And to be clear, my distance to said bodies - and my beliefs - differ from Tom's. This is Tom's challenge. If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.

Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.

To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:

Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.

If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.


On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.


We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.

After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.

Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 05:07:30 PM
As far as I can tell, he made no claim of distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy. Again, as far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.
Tom Bishop certainly makes claims as to the shape, size and distance of the Moon in:
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Moon (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon)
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And if you examine the Revision history of "Moon" (https://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=Moon&action=history) you will find that it is almost all the work of Tom Bishop and as recently as 18:02, 11 December 2019‎ Tom Bishop (contribs).

Is Tom Bishop now unwilling to support his own Wiki entry?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 05:18:31 PM
The point is and has been he has not been called to do such. The parameters of this discussion are clearly defined. I will duck out again for a bit and let Tom fight his own battles; I tend to muddy up his good work.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 06:29:23 PM
The point is and has been he has not been called to do such.
I assume that you've read the OP?
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.

Quote from: John Davis
The parameters of this discussion are clearly defined. I will duck out again for a bit and let Tom fight his own battles; I tend to muddy up his good work.
[/quote
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:33:56 PM
Have you read it?! Start a thread on any topic. I'm not sure this thread has even been started. He simply asked for you to present your evidence for your view. Where is it? I've seen a lot of hand waving, and playing the game of 'its not me its you' or what I call burden of proof, and a lot of meta discussion. I have not seen ONE reason that meets mettle for why round earth astronomy is more valid than flat. The burden is clearly on your side of the line.

Meet it or accept defeat. Because fuck, we all have better things to do.

Well, most of us.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Timeisup on February 29, 2020, 04:06:58 AM
Have you read it?! Start a thread on any topic. I'm not sure this thread has even been started. He simply asked for you to present your evidence for your view. Where is it? I've seen a lot of hand waving, and playing the game of 'its not me its you' or what I call burden of proof, and a lot of meta discussion. I have not seen ONE reason that meets mettle for why round earth astronomy is more valid than flat. The burden is clearly on your side of the line.

Meet it or accept defeat. Because fuck, we all have better things to do.

Well, most of us.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84980.0
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on February 29, 2020, 09:39:37 AM
So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: inquisitive on February 29, 2020, 11:05:35 AM
So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.
Measured by RE?  Surely just measured by engineers and scientists.
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on February 29, 2020, 11:33:18 AM
Yes let me be more specific than just 'RE'. Over many years astronomers and 'scientists' and 'engineers' have made accurate measurements of the Moons distance. From their measurements we have identified that the Moon is receding from Earth at an average rate of about 2cm per year. That is entirely supportive of the model we have of the early solar system formation where a large body collided with the Earth and the Moon formed from the resulting debris.

Where is the description of your own measurements which tell you that the Moon is only 3000 miles away?

Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 29, 2020, 12:28:40 PM

Where is the description of your own measurements which tell you that the Moon is only 3000 miles away?

Where is the description of your own measurements?
Title: Re: The Bishop Challenge
Post by: Solarwind on February 29, 2020, 01:21:58 PM
Measurements of what?  Showing that the Moon is just 3000 miles away?  I don't have any because everyone (well the vast majority of people) knows that the Moon is a lot further away than 3000 miles.   Even you know that I'm sure secretly!

You cannot go through life only being willing to believe things you can prove to yourself. There are some things in life where you have to rely on others with the right equipment to do the measuring for you and accept as valid the results they get. Measuring the distance to the Moon is one of those. I am not someone who refuses to accept anything that I cannot prove or verify myself as you appear to be.

I suppose I (or indeed you) could try this

https://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/

The problem with the first method for FE believers is that the FE version of how lunar eclipses happen is different to the 'mainstream' view so you probably won't accept it.

The other method uses lunar parallax.  But that also relies on established what you could call 'RE' figures that you won't accept either.  Plus I (or you) would need a friend on the other side of the world to take some measurements as well.

One thing is for sure. If you had two people standing 3,200km apart or a little less than 2000 miles and the Moon is (as FE claim) just 3000 miles away then you would see a much, much bigger parallax than I predict you actually will when you do the experiment.  So my hypothesis is that the Moon is a lot further away than just 3000 miles!