The Bishop Challenge

  • 376 Replies
  • 15845 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #300 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #301 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?
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.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #302 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.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #303 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?

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #304 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.
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 #305 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #306 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #307 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.


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #308 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #309 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.


*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #310 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"?

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #311 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)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #312 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #313 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!
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #314 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
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.


« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 11:46:08 PM by rabinoz »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39626
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #315 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. ::)
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.

*

Macarios

  • 2035
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #316 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

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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 09:55:09 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Timeisup

  • 1088
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #317 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).  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.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #318 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.



Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #319 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?

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #320 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
      Rocket-borne in-situ measurements in the middle atmosphere by Jonas Hedin

And this summarises the properties of the "Standard Atmosphere" up to 80,000 metres:
      Engineering ToolBox: U.S. Standard Atmosphere
Then, based on those sounding rocket and later measurements there is the:
      MSISE-90 Model of Earth's Upper Atmosphere

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?
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).

<< More details in the link. >>
The above is also in Distance to the Sun: Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.
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?


*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #321 on: January 11, 2020, 09:42:24 PM »
According to round earth doctrine, light gets bendy when it suits them too.


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

Werenasa XXII - Register here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86459.0

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #322 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
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.


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.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #323 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".

*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #324 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:



Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

Werenasa XXII - Register here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86459.0

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #325 on: January 12, 2020, 01:29:49 AM »
Doesnt look like a sunset to me.
Try again.

*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #326 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.



Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

Werenasa XXII - Register here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86459.0

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #327 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:

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.

*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #328 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:

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!


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

Werenasa XXII - Register here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86459.0

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #329 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:

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.