The sun doesn't work as a spotlight

He would have to see the Frisbee to determine whether the teenagers were throwing Frisbees or pretending to throw Frisbees. While I would have accepted that he inferred they were playing, that is not what he claimed.

This is needlessly pedantic.  Obviously one can see that someone is throwing frisbees if he can see that they are playing frisbee.  Non sequitur.  Again, the implication of seeing the frisbee itself is never made.

We'd then have to look at whether he could have seen people.

Agreed.  Why bother continuing to attack this strawman if it's irrelevant to the discussion?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 15, 2012, 11:23:37 AM

He would have to see the Frisbee to determine whether the teenagers were throwing Frisbees or pretending to throw Frisbees. While I would have accepted that he inferred they were playing, that is not what he claimed.

This is needlessly pedantic.  Obviously one can see that someone is throwing frisbees if he can see that they are playing frisbee.  Non sequitur.  Again, the implication of seeing the frisbee itself is never made.

Quote

We'd then have to look at whether he could have seen people.

Agreed.

You miss one point. He cannot determine if the teenagers were throwing a Frisbee or just pretending to do so without seeing the Frisbee. If he just inferred the Frisbee, he still is reporting inference as fact. I realize that many FEer do that, but it's still a lie.

You miss one point. He cannot determine if the teenagers were throwing a Frisbee or just pretending to do so without seeing the Frisbee. If he just inferred the Frisbee, he still is reporting inference as fact. I realize that many FEer do that, but it's still a lie.

You miss the point, I'm afraid.  If he can discern their movements, he can discern that they were throwing a frisbee, whether he can see the frisbee or not.  If you are arguing that they might have just been pretending to throw a frisbee, I have to say that your needless pedantry has turned into outright silliness.

Have you ever played frisbee?  Why would Tom need to see the frisbee to be able to infer that that's what they were playing?

Assuming that the telescope that Tom linked to is the one that he uses in his observations, it only has a maximum theoretical magnification of 226x.  I would contend that this is woefully inadequate to resolve human sized objects at a distance of 20 miles or more as Tom claims.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 15, 2012, 11:16:05 AM

Have you ever played frisbee?  Why would Tom need to see the frisbee to be able to infer that that's what they were playing?

Assuming that the telescope that Tom linked to is the one that he uses in his observations, it only has a maximum theoretical magnification of 226x.  I would contend that this is woefully inadequate to resolve human sized objects at a distance of 20 miles or more as Tom claims.

Do you agree that you can resolve a person quarter of a mile off in the distance without a telescope?

Do you agree that if you could increase your magnification by two fold (2x) you could see a person half mile off?

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

There would have been no point in conducting the experiment with one of those so-called 500x telescopes, as 200x is the maximum theoretical magnification ratio a telescope could achieve through the atmosphere.

Do you agree that you can resolve a person half a mile off in the distance without a telescope?

Do you agree that if you could increase your magnification by two fold (2x) you could see a person 1 mile off?

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

resolution != magnification.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2012, 12:02:37 PM

Do you agree that you can resolve a person half a mile off in the distance without a telescope?

Do you agree that if you could increase your magnification by two fold (2x) you could see a person 1 mile off?

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

resolution != magnification.

Unless digital, more magnification = more resolution.

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

Because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. (sound familiar?)

Quote from: ClockTower on January 15, 2012, 12:08:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2012, 12:02:37 PM

Do you agree that you can resolve a person half a mile off in the distance without a telescope?

Do you agree that if you could increase your magnification by two fold (2x) you could see a person 1 mile off?

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

resolution != magnification.

More magnification = more resolution, unless digital magnification.

Not according to Tom Bishop. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30251.msg748690;topicseen#msg748690

As we can see, my smaller reflector with a magnification of 226x is just as good as the larger ones which advertise "500x" magnification since the atmosphere limits magnification to 200-250x anyway.

Quote

We'd then have to look at whether he could have seen people.

Agreed.  Why bother continuing to attack this strawman if it's irrelevant to the discussion?

Just because it's ultimately irrelevant doesn't make it a strawman attack. Tom does claim that he can see details as small as a frisbee as well as people:

The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2012, 10:23:37 AM

I didn't say anything about seeing Frisbees in that quote. The quote says that I can see people doing those things.

Tell us how you discerned water splashing upon the shore, how you discerned that people were walking dogs, and how you discerned the difference between children, teenagers, and adults. You also claimed to have seen people "sun bathing", which means you were able to make out things only as tall as a person lying down.

And if you can discern all of these things, you should have also been able to actually see frisbees as well, in the first place. Or are you now recanting all of the above?

It has already been demonstrated that Tom could not have seen a 17-foot beach ball, let alone a person, let alone a dog, let alone a frisbee.

You're the one who's attacking a strawman by acting like the frisbee is the only contention we have against Tom's claims.



Tom, is this the telescope that you use laying down on your stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above sea level? Yes or no.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on January 15, 2012, 12:40:05 AM

Even if it was a forty foot barge, the point is that he saw it at the shoreline.

No, he claims to have seen it.  The laws of optics suggest otherwise.  This is why we keep asking for photographic evidence and detailed documentation which Tom steadfastly refuses to provide.

I just noticed this post in FEB where Tom says he wants to publish an article on the Monterey Bay. He must have enough documentation to be worthy of an entire article. I wonder why he won't share it then? Or will these articles turn out to be just another myth like John's book?

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2012, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 15, 2012, 11:16:05 AM

Have you ever played frisbee?  Why would Tom need to see the frisbee to be able to infer that that's what they were playing?

Assuming that the telescope that Tom linked to is the one that he uses in his observations, it only has a maximum theoretical magnification of 226x.  I would contend that this is woefully inadequate to resolve human sized objects at a distance of 20 miles or more as Tom claims.

Do you agree that you can resolve a person quarter of a mile off in the distance without a telescope?

Do you agree that if you could increase your magnification by two fold (2x) you could see a person half mile off?

If so, what makes you think that you couldn't see a person 20 miles off with a magnification of 226x?

There would have been no point in conducting the experiment with one of those so-called 500x telescopes, as 200x is the maximum theoretical magnification ratio a telescope could achieve through the atmosphere.

Again and again the naive Tom Bishop lies about a subject that he does not know even the simplest basics, and believes he can fool those of us who at least know the basics of the subject.

The subject of this discussion is resolving power, not magnification!

Any telescope can be fitted with the right eyepiece and one or more Barlow lenses, or tele-extenders, to achieve enormous amplifications, well above the 500x he mentions. But the resolving power (the capacity to show two objects that are close to each other as two objects, not just one blob) is actually reduced when pushing a telescope to the maximum magnifications.

Anyone who does the arithmetic that Tom Bishop is doing is, in effect, shouting to the four winds that he has never used a telescope. He does not understand that we are talking about limitations imposed by the fact that light is a wave of some 400 to 700 nanometers of wavelength, and that not even a 4.5 inch super-telescope brought here by the aliens could break the limit we are talking about.

All of us who have used telescopes instead of copy-pasting images of them from the Internet have looked at some object with a medium magnification and then with the maximum possible magnification, only to see that the image is less sharp and that under some circumstances you actually see less detail, not more.

Once again, the calculations shown in this forum many times, two of them by me, assume a "perfect" telescope of 4.5 inches of aperture, just like the one in the photo, not a real life, imperfect telescope, and even we have shown that people would be seen as indiscernible blotches, only the biggest beach balls would be seen as indiscernible blotches, small beach balls, arms, legs and frisbees would not be seen at all.

And using the calculations shown by ClockTower, which are based on real life telescopes, not "perfect" ones, with a 4.5 inch telescope no people at all can be seen, not even giants. It would take a much larger 16 inch telescope to see an 8 feet person.

Of course, Tom Bishop could take a photo or otherwise demonstrate that what he claims he sees is real, and then he would rewrite all optics books ever written and could revolutionize all physics based on waves.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 15, 2012, 11:33:34 AM

You miss one point. He cannot determine if the teenagers were throwing a Frisbee or just pretending to do so without seeing the Frisbee. If he just inferred the Frisbee, he still is reporting inference as fact. I realize that many FEer do that, but it's still a lie.

You miss the point, I'm afraid.  If he can discern their movements, he can discern that they were throwing a frisbee, whether he can see the frisbee or not.  If you are arguing that they might have just been pretending to throw a frisbee, I have to say that your needless pedantry has turned into outright silliness.

You are assuming that Tom Bishop could have seen a clearly recognizable image of a person. We are stretching the argument in favor of Tom Bishop's unsustainable position in every way that Physics permits, and even going beyond that, and even then, if a person is seen at all it is seen as just one blob. You are extending the assumed power of the magical telescope of Tom Bishop by even another order of magnitude when you decide that they are recognizable as people.

If I look at a scene with a real 4.5 inch telescope, stretching the resolving power of my telescope to the very limit (say, looking at people on a beach at 20 km on a perfectly calm day) I would see colored blotches (assuming they use clothes of very bright colors) that move with respect to the surroundings. I would not even know for certain if I am seeing a person, or a small car or any object of one meter by one meter. I could conclude it is a person, but with an enormous degree of uncertainty, because it moves in a certain way. Going from that to declaring the blob is actually a person throwing a frisbee is beyond stupid.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 15, 2012, 11:36:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 15, 2012, 11:33:34 AM

You miss one point. He cannot determine if the teenagers were throwing a Frisbee or just pretending to do so without seeing the Frisbee. If he just inferred the Frisbee, he still is reporting inference as fact. I realize that many FEer do that, but it's still a lie.

You miss the point, I'm afraid.  If he can discern their movements, he can discern that they were throwing a frisbee, whether he can see the frisbee or not.  If you are arguing that they might have just been pretending to throw a frisbee, I have to say that your needless pedantry has turned into outright silliness.

You are assuming that Tom Bishop could have seen a clearly recognizable image of a person.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.  It's a different argument.

Quote from: trig on January 20, 2012, 05:20:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 15, 2012, 11:36:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 15, 2012, 11:33:34 AM

You miss one point. He cannot determine if the teenagers were throwing a Frisbee or just pretending to do so without seeing the Frisbee. If he just inferred the Frisbee, he still is reporting inference as fact. I realize that many FEer do that, but it's still a lie.

You miss the point, I'm afraid.  If he can discern their movements, he can discern that they were throwing a frisbee, whether he can see the frisbee or not.  If you are arguing that they might have just been pretending to throw a frisbee, I have to say that your needless pedantry has turned into outright silliness.

You are assuming that Tom Bishop could have seen a clearly recognizable image of a person.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.  It's a different argument.

No, the argument is whether Tom has lied when he said that he saw teenagers merrily playing Frisbee. Tell us how Tom could declare that without recognizing a person. Aren't teenagers people? I surely would expect that if I claim I saw an activity that I could at least be able to discern the actors. Heck, Tom even tells us that the actors are between the ages of 12 and 20. The science says that he can't resolve two objects smaller than 16 feet across each--and all he could discern is that there are two objects vice one. I don't think any teenagers are 16 feet across, do you? I would think that I'd need to be able to resolve even clothing to determine the actors ages, and probably be able to see their faces.

It is funny no one has attacked Tom Bishop's choice of telescope, a Newtonian reflector. Which, by the way, makes all terrestrial images upside down and backwards.

It is funny no one has attacked Tom Bishop's choice of telescope, a Newtonian reflector. Which, by the way, makes all terrestrial images upside down and backwards.

probably because it doesnt matter

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 20, 2012, 07:28:18 PM

It is funny no one has attacked Tom Bishop's choice of telescope, a Newtonian reflector. Which, by the way, makes all terrestrial images upside down and backwards.

probably because it doesnt matter

If Tom determined the details of what he was looking at, at the magnifications he specifies, and the detail he provides, then yes, it matters. It is not plausible to see details like that using an average Newtonian reflector, especially the mediocre quality one he claimed to have used.

Roundy's point is that Tom wouldn't have needed to see the frisbee if he could see the people clearly:

That's his argument, not mine.  If he could see people as he claims, I see no reason to think he couldn't infer that they were playing frisbee.

This is why he's saying his is a "different argument".

However, even though he cautiously won't commit to actually defending Tom's claim about seeing people, Roundy's point still fails because Tom did also say that he could see the frisbees, as well as dogs and sunbathers and splashing waves on the shore, all of which are much smaller and less discernible than a person standing on the beach. Did he "infer" these things as well?

And of course the whole argument is a waste of time because Tom can't have seen people, period.

It is not plausible to see details like that using an average Newtonian reflector, especially the mediocre quality one he claimed to have used.

Correct, but that has little to do with whether things are upside down. Unless you're saying Tom isn't smart enough to discern what things are when they're upside down.

It is funny no one has attacked Tom Bishop's choice of telescope, a Newtonian reflector. Which, by the way, makes all terrestrial images upside down and backwards.

There is a misunderstanding here, one that Tom Bishop could have cleared if he knew the first thing about telescopes. Even if he had ever bought one (he claims to have a top-of-the-line Celestron NexStar, which suddenly becomes an Orion StarBlast, also top ot the line, which suddenly became a low end Orion in the pictures of this thread) he would have learned a few things that he patently does not know.

For an explanation of Tom Bishop's telescopes look at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21115.msg444692#msg444692

Both Newtonian and Refractor  telescopes can produce an upright or an inverted image. In fact, both kinds of objective (mirror and lens, respectively) produce an inverted image and the eyepiece is the one which can invert the image again or not. Anyhow, a Newtonian telescope is awkward to use for terrestrial observations because the eyepiece is at a right angle with respect to the objective.

He also does not seem to understand that any telescope, without its tripod, is useless for any observation if the magnification is 226x. At the very most, a 50x telescope is stable enough when handheld to be useful. Can you imagine Tom Bishop holding a Newtonian telescope by hand, just above the sand, pointing it at people that are 50 km away, seeing the image upside down (because he used an astronomical telescope) and even with the shaking, the difficulty of pointing with an inverted image, seeing people with enough resolution to judge their age and the type of game they are playing? The only clear images he can see under those conditions are the ones that a good injection of LSD help him see.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 20, 2012, 07:28:18 PM

It is funny no one has attacked Tom Bishop's choice of telescope, a Newtonian reflector. Which, by the way, makes all terrestrial images upside down and backwards.

There is a misunderstanding here, one that Tom Bishop could have cleared if he knew the first thing about telescopes. Even if he had ever bought one (he claims to have a top-of-the-line Celestron NexStar, which suddenly becomes an Orion StarBlast, also top ot the line, which suddenly became a low end Orion in the pictures of this thread) he would have learned a few things that he patently does not know.

For an explanation of Tom Bishop's telescopes look at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21115.msg444692#msg444692

Both Newtonian and Refractor  telescopes can produce an upright or an inverted image. In fact, both kinds of objective (mirror and lens, respectively) produce an inverted image and the eyepiece is the one which can invert the image again or not. Anyhow, a Newtonian telescope is awkward to use for terrestrial observations because the eyepiece is at a right angle with respect to the objective.

He also does not seem to understand that any telescope, without its tripod, is useless for any observation if the magnification is 226x. At the very most, a 50x telescope is stable enough when handheld to be useful. Can you imagine Tom Bishop holding a Newtonian telescope by hand, just above the sand, pointing it at people that are 50 km away, seeing the image upside down (because he used an astronomical telescope) and even with the shaking, the difficulty of pointing with an inverted image, seeing people with enough resolution to judge their age and the type of game they are playing? The only clear images he can see under those conditions are the ones that a good injection of LSD help him see.

Don't forget the liar Tom Bishop also claims to need only "a good pair of binoculars" to see people 33 miles away!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.msg178295;topicseen#msg178295

Assuming that Tom Bishop's outlandish claim that he can discern a person at a distance of half of a mile with his naked eyes and that the persons are 6 feet tall and that "a good pair of binoculars" provide 50x, he would be able to discern a person with the binoculars at no more than .5 * 50 miles = 25 miles < 33 miles. So again we know he lies.

I don't know about you, but I can't even discern between two cars that are half of a mile away.

Assuming that Tom Bishop's outlandish claim that he can discern a person at a distance of half of a mile with his naked eyes and that the persons are 6 feet tall and that "a good pair of binoculars" provide 50x, he would be able to discern a person with the binoculars at no more than .5 * 50 miles = 25 miles < 33 miles. So again we know he lies.

I don't know about you, but I can't even discern between two cars that are half of a mile away.

I found a good place where you get the resolving power of the eye explained and measured: http://stokes.byu.edu/resolve.html

Extrapolating their results to 800 meters (half a mile) we get that the average person would see a difference between a gray wall and neatly spread people that are 40 cm wide. In these perfect circumstances the average person would see that something different from a gray wall is there, but would not know what is there.

At a quarter mile (another number he uses) you would get some hints that you are seeing a person if it has black clothes and stands in front of a white wall, but the image would be tenuous at best. You could be easily deceived by any moving object of the same approximate size of a person, and in less than perfect contrast situations nobody would even see the person (remember that the test mentioned in the link uses black lines on a white background).

Also, Tom Bishop talks about the height of people, when the real issue is their width. Under these conditions a person that is 9 feet high but less than a foot wide (i.e. if it is standing sideways) would be totally indiscernible.