The Bishop 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.”

Still waiting.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: 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?

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.

Well one thing which is a fact is that rather clearly at the top of the Wiki page on the Moon it says...

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!

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.   

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

<< 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Heard of a prism?

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

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. 

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!

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?

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?

Quote from: 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?

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?

Quote from: markjo on December 15, 2019, 05:01:00 PM

Quote from: 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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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".

"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 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.

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.

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? 

And it might be off-topic...

And with that, you just lost the challenge.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 15, 2019, 06:56:59 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?

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.

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!

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.

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.