The Bishop Challenge

  • 376 Replies
  • 15837 Views
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #270 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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #271 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

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.

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #272 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?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #273 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
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #274 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?
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #275 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?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #276 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?
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #277 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/

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #278 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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 10:25:44 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #279 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 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.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #280 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.

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #281 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).  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.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #282 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).  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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #283 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.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #284 on: January 10, 2020, 12:11:31 PM »
I guess not. Another victory for the flat earth!
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #285 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #286 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #287 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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 12:26:12 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #288 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?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #289 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #290 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?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #291 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #292 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #293 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?

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #294 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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #295 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #296 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #297 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #298 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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #299 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.

Quantum Ab Hoc