1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« on: Today at 08:45:35 PM »Aetherific eddification/electromagnetic acceleration.That helps, I guess

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Aetherific eddification/electromagnetic acceleration.That helps, I guess
And as I stated, that winning or losing a debate is unimportant, it poves nothing.And it might be off-topic...And with that, you just lost the challenge.
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."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.
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.You complain about assumptions but then you, yes YOU personally, put this "assumption" in your Wiki!
Nearside Always SeenWhat is that but a totally unsupported assumption? I cannot even imagine a possible refractive index profile that could cause such light paths!
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.
Nearside Always SeenCan somebody, preferably Tom Bishop, please explain some plausible physical mechanism that could cause such light paths?
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.
Hoppy, a word of advice! Don't venture into the upper fora or you might get lost.QFTRockets work in a vacuum.No they don't.
Yes they do workRockets work in a vacuumNo they don't.
.
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.Really!
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?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.
Which is completely irrelevant! Most planes crashes are violent.
What's left of the plane. Clearly it met with a violent end.
But here is rab. Stating without evidence of his own that the plane was not downed deliberately but was yet another accident. And he claims this before any investigation was concluded. Not that the investigations will be forthcoming with the actual truthI said no such thing, Mr Shifter! Read again:
Until you can show adequate evidence that the plane was deliberately "downed" you have nothing.You inability to read what is written shows up so often. Maybe you should check in with
But that fact is,But the fact's are:this Chilean plane crash was not an accident
I'm just laying down the facts. If that 'one ups' anyone then so be it.Show one fact that you've laid down - it's not a fact until proven and all we have is that words of an empty headed babbler or is that some new bird?
Prove me wrong if you think the possibilities are bullshitWe are not talking about possibilities! You falsely claimed "facts".
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!"
MoonWith no evidence to back it up.
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.
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.
“ Simulated views of the Moon over one month, demonstrating librations in latitude and longitude.”
Nearside Always SeenYou claim that insisting that light travels in straight lines in uniform material is simply an assumption,
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.
<< etc >>
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)The basic "challenge" is
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 proof is the numerous planes downed and so called 'accidental ship wrecks'.Just face it! You've proven nothing.
Even you must admit that for the limited traffic near Antarctica, there is a disproportionate amount of 'accidents' over anywhere else in the world over a similar sized area.I/we admit nothing of the sort!
Underground missile silos and flak cannons dotted across the continentThis would be hilarious if it weren't of such a sombre topic.
Governments around the world are always shooting down others' planes. What's your point?Always - like twice? And both of those were due to misidentification.
A white out shouldn't be an issue. Unless auto pilot flight routes have planes fly into mountains.Go and read the full report and don't pretend that you can guess all that might lead to a disaster like this.
And why would a pilot simply not increase altitude? It's a white out. Sight seeing is over anyway right?
If the pilot deviates, then expect the plane to be downed such as the case from the New Zealand disasterWhat total adulterated garbage!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901
Guilty conscience, I seeYou appear to know a lot of "secret stuff" how do you come by this? what are your sources?
If I said, maybe people would look for me to knock me off.
What about the great number on independent expeditions, alone, in pairs or in small goups.None of this has much to do with Antarctica tourism. Who wants to visit an ice sheet at -40 degrees or lower filled with disgusting, smelly penguins, who rape their own dead and be under watch from military who do not want you to traverse there? Most people have the good sense to know what is out of bounds. Be it mother nature telling them not to bother with the place or past events strongly indicating nefarious actions involved in the untimely deaths to those that dare.It would appear many do want to visit. You don’t. Does not mean everyone thinks the same.
Yeah, and they dont get to do what they want.
I never said travel there was impossible - just that YOU dont get to free roam.No, YOU said, "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds"!
No, it doesn't work that way, Mr Shifter!Don't bother posting again unless you at least have evidence of foul play.None of you have posted evidence to the contrary of the plane being downed. Until you can, your posts are merely shilling or speculation
No, GS.Is it also RAB?No.
Do I get a turn?
RADAR is an electromagnetic echo machine,I guess so but it's an ultrasonic echo machine in the latter case
even if it's stuffed up your butt.
It's not my claim that it is 'out of bounds'.It is obviously your claim! Read your own topic title, "Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds".
But events such as the downing of planesYou still have not posted evidence let alone proof that any planes were "downed"!
and security clearances required for entry make that abundantly obviousWhat total rubbish. They make nothing "obvious" except to conspiratards like you.
Not quite.Maritime radar is usually used for collision avoidance. Radar in spacecraft is usually used for rendezvous, docking or landing assistance.
Sooooo, collision avoidance.
So you say but your word seem worth nothing.Runaway with you stupid conspiracy theories!That treaty is not worth my sons used nappy.
So much for rabs insistence that everyone there is peaceful and only doing 'research'.How little you know.
Within Chilean territorial organization Antártica is the name of the commune that administers the territory. The commune of Antártica is managed by the municipality of Cabo de Hornos with seat in Puerto Williams and belongs to Antártica Chilena Province, which is part of Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena Region. The commune of Antártica was created on July 11, 1961, and was dependent on the Magallanes Province until 1975, when the Antártica Chilena Province was created, making it dependent administratively on Puerto Williams, the province capital.
Chilean territorial claims on Antarctica are mainly based on historical, legal and geographical considerations. The exercise of Chilean sovereignty over the Chilean Antarctic Territory is put into effect in all aspects that are not limited by the signing of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.
Well read the OP.I did!
People diedYes, a plane crashed and people died. That is tragic but planes crash for numerous reasons.
when protocol was obviously not adhered to.That is nothing more than a baseless innuendo.
No. You do not have free reign in Antarctica. The fact that lyinoz can name people who have visited there shows that exactly.And I suspect that you'll find a record of all those attempted to climb Mt Everest, so what?
Rab you talk lies.What I wrote was completely true and you've never proven otherwise.
There is not a so gle other continent on Earth that you are not allowed to free roam (countries like North Korea are the exception for political reasons).Please learn to read Mr Shifter! What I wrote was:
Not only that but visitors are allowed to visit Antarctica and even the South Pole itself.All I said was that "visitors are allowed to visit Antarctica" and they most certainly are. Why wouldn't they be?
You want to 'see' Antarctica? You can go on a plane where the route and what you fly over is dictated. You can not step foot and do your own thing.And where did you drag that from? How many would you like?
You want to work there? You must be background checked and have a valid security clearance from your government despite Antarctica not being 'owned' by anyone. What the hell?There are "out if bounds" areas in all countries so what? Antarctica, as a whole is not "out of bounds".
Anyone that wants to go there by boat has to have a plan forwarded to other people of where and how long they will be there. I don't need to do this if I want to go to Greenland.
So yes. There are bounds in Antarctica. It most certainly is not 'in bounds' for just anyone.
Proof that Antarctica is out of boundsThe meaning of "out of bounds" here is "people are not allowed there".
What do you mean by that expression?