The Bishop Challenge

  • 376 Replies
  • 15853 Views
*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #330 on: January 12, 2020, 03:50:01 AM »
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

Check your time again! I don't usually go to bed before 10 PM.

 ::) ::) ::)


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

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

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #331 on: January 12, 2020, 04:11:22 AM »
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #332 on: January 12, 2020, 04:16:22 AM »
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

Settle down. Please dont get bitter and be grumpy to your wife or you'll be on the couch again!  I simply suggested you read the links before you go to bed. The links had some useful information. For you and the readers of this thread

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Obviously you guys dont like to be 'shown up'  ::)


Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

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

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #333 on: January 12, 2020, 05:00:00 AM »
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Because "bendy light" in real science has a logical basis, be it the very small refraction in air to much larger bending in prisms and lenses.

The "bendy light" in Tom Bishop's hypothesis was just manufactured to make his never-setting sun appear to set, moon phases to look as they should etc.

Just look at the typical astronomical refraction when light comes from space into atmosphere:
     34.5 minutes of arc when on the horizon,
      5.3 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon and
      2.6 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon.
And that is from a cause that has been measured and researched for centuries.

Now, look at that massive amount of "bending" that "The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states" with no supporting evidence!


Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.

*

Shifter

  • 14261
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #334 on: January 12, 2020, 05:27:46 AM »
I don't have any self imposed bedtime of 10PM and what time I go to bed is no business of yours.

My point is that both flat earthers and round earthers coin the phrase 'bendy light', yet only round earthers give the other side a lot of flak and asserting it as complete nonsense.

Because "bendy light" in real science has a logical basis, be it the very small refraction in air to much larger bending in prisms and lenses.

The "bendy light" in Tom Bishop's hypothesis was just manufactured to make his never-setting sun appear to set, moon phases to look as they should etc.

Just look at the typical astronomical refraction when light comes from space into atmosphere:
     34.5 minutes of arc when on the horizon,
      5.3 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon and
      2.6 minutes of arc when 10° above the horizon.
And that is from a cause that has been measured and researched for centuries.

Now, look at that massive amount of "bending" that "The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states" with no supporting evidence!


Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Ok. I think you've earned a rest  ;D


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 #335 on: January 12, 2020, 07:02:23 AM »

Quote from: John Davis
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.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


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.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #336 on: January 12, 2020, 07:25:19 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.

I was though.
You must have responded to the wrong post then.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 03:04:26 PM by Themightykabool »

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #337 on: January 12, 2020, 01:46:06 PM »
Can't you see the massive difference between the two claims? Ask Tom Bishop how the flat-Earth explains sunsets and he'll drag out his EA ;D!

No, might you let me get to bed ;D ;D ;D ;D.

Ok. I think you've earned a rest  ;D
:) :) :) :)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #338 on: January 14, 2020, 09:47:27 AM »
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?


Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.

Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect - there is no direct evidence of this being the case. As such, any number of unknowns poison this well and any experiments referenced if they were being honest would report a null result.



Quote from: John Davis
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.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


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.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.
I'm not seeing any direct measurements there. If you can't back up your belief aside from coherency within it, then you might as well be writing science fiction. Perhaps I missed it; mind citing it directly?

Why do you "have good reason to believe" space is a vacuum? And that it also doesn't have other properties?

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'

You have shown plenty of correlation. You have not shown any cause, or any direct measurement to support your correlation.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #339 on: January 14, 2020, 09:47:48 AM »
I'll try to find some time to reply to other comments here. Its a bit of a busy week.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #340 on: January 14, 2020, 10:05:04 AM »
Inferred?
The limitations of high alt weather balloons would say otherwise.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #341 on: January 14, 2020, 01:25:02 PM »
Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.
No, he made a very big assumption which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, that Earth was flat.

Then there is the assumption you always REers over, even though it is quite rational to conclude, that light travels in geodesics except when passing through an interface between mediums causing refraction.

But then to explain countless other issues he needs all sorts of assumptions to magically prop it up.

Meanwhile, the RE one only relies upon light travelling in geodesics.

Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect
I would say the vast majority is quite direct.

If you want to appeal to it being inferred and indirect then it is only appropriate apply that label to basically everything, especially everything allegedly propping up a FE.

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'
You mean it has been a huge exercise in coming up with excuses to deny reality?

Again, just what direct measurement would there be? Even using a tape measure would be indirect and rely upon the same kind of assumptions.

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #342 on: January 14, 2020, 02:19:34 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?

Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it. He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth.
  • Where is there evidence, direct or indirect, that the even is a "dome".

  • Where is there evidence, direct or indirect, of the height of this "dome".
So, on what basis can you assert that "Rowbotham's view would place the sun within the dome, not outside it"?
[/li][/list]

In any case, being inside the "dome" hardly justifies, "He made no assumptions as we can directly measure the path of light as best as we can anywhere on earth."
Surely being 700 or 3000 miles above the Earth cannot possibly be classed as being "anywhere on earth"?

Quote from: John Davis
Your so called evidences however as you note are inferred and indirect - there is no direct evidence of this being the case. As such, any number of unknowns poison this well and any experiments referenced if they were being honest would report a null result.
And exactly the same would apply to all the flat-Earth claims about the heights of the Sun, Moon and stars.

So I must repeat again! 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?

That is the topic that no flat-Earther will address.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #343 on: January 14, 2020, 02:49:32 PM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #344 on: January 14, 2020, 02:59:32 PM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
Please explain, the Failure in the explanation of the moon phases.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #345 on: January 14, 2020, 03:01:48 PM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
How about measured distances, travel times, path of the sun, satellite operation, accurate maps using projections, WGS84 model?

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #346 on: January 14, 2020, 03:41:02 PM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.

I thought the challenge was to produce how you calc the moon size and distance.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #347 on: January 15, 2020, 12:18:30 AM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.
No, it was that RE beets FE, and it succeeded wonderfully, with you fleeing as fast as possible, even running away from the topic quite early on.

It all started with the moon, with the specific topic chosen being the size and distance to the moon.
The REers can easily justify the distance and size, with the distance determined from several different methods.

FE seems to have nothing at all and instead just focused on objecting to RE by claiming everything is unsubstantiated.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #348 on: January 15, 2020, 01:53:30 AM »

Quote from: John Davis
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.

Yes, really.  I already gave you one link about how the speed of light has been determined for atmosphere, vacuum, etc.  Including examples of lab measurements and astronomical measurements, as well as showing how little difference air makes, due to our old friend refraction, which I will again point out is very well understood.

But you ignored that in favour of righteous indignation that I would suggest you do some reading on the subject-


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.

Even if you genuinely missed my link, is there no other resource available to find out about the speed of light?  This maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_measurements

But your claim that the speed of light in the “interplanetary medium” might be significant, doesn’t just depend on what measurements we have made of light through space.  It also depends on what it would need to be, which is simple to work out.

The index of refraction of air at atmospheric pressure is about 1.0003.  Water is about 1.33.  For commonly quoted flat earther distances to the moon to be consistent with laser measurements, we’d need the space between us and the moon to have refractive indexes in the hundreds.  ie. light needs to be slowed down 6 orders of magnitude more than in the atmosphere.  As we also have very good reason to believe that space is pretty damn close to a total vacuum, we can add a few more orders of magnitude to that.

This is so far beyond any regular uncertainty in measurements, it’s not even funny.

So I’m afraid it really is up to you to justify your claim.
I'm not seeing any direct measurements there. If you can't back up your belief aside from coherency within it, then you might as well be writing science fiction. Perhaps I missed it; mind citing it directly?

Why do you "have good reason to believe" space is a vacuum? And that it also doesn't have other properties?

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'

You have shown plenty of correlation. You have not shown any cause, or any direct measurement to support your correlation.

Who says that indirect measurements are invalid?  That sounds like unsupported personal opinion to me.  Indirect measurements are used all over the place in science.  That often introduces extra uncertainty, but that’s fine as that is taken into account.

Basic reasons for thinking interplanetary space is a vacuum include orbits working without decaying, trajectories of spacecraft working with no resistance, astronauts needing spacesuits, etc, etc.

I admit I don’t know how scientists have determined just how high a vacuum it is.  Frankly, I’m not much inclined to waste my time searching yet another another thing just for you to dismiss it out of hand with one sentence.  It’s not necessary for this conversation anyway.  High enough vacuum for no detectable drag is good enough.

There’s a lot more than mere correlation.  An important aspect of science is consilience of evidence, where multiple independent measurements and studies arrive at the same conclusion. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

In the case of the speed of light in a vacuum, we have several different types of astronomical measurement, and several different methods of lab measurement all giving the same result.  Which means we have high confidence it’s correct.  Regarding the shape of the earth in general, there’s so much evidence from multiple strands that all fits neatly together there’s really only one conclusion.

Flat earthers on the other hand seem to rely almost exclusively on one type of (indirect) measurement, from the amount of an object visible above the horizon.  A measurement that is known to have significant variation, especially over water.  Other observations are routinely ignored, dismissed as fake or given only a vague explanation that’s often inconsistent with the other vague explanations.

It’s really not good enough, you need a model that explains everything together at least as well as the heliocentric model to be seriously considered. 

My beliefs are backed up by centuries of science, and more recently actual photos of the planet from space showing exactly what it looks like.  What are yours backed up by?

Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.

Erm.  For RE to beat FE, it needs better explanations for the available evidence.  As usual you aren’t even trying to provide FE explanations, only attempting casting doubt on RE.

Far from having ripped anyone a new one, you’ve not even started.

Now you want to change the terms.  It’s like challenging someone to a 100m race, then demanding that they beat a time of 9.6s while you sit on the sidelines.

If anything, RE wins by default.

*

Timeisup

  • 1088
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #349 on: February 28, 2020, 01:59:47 AM »
Let’s be clear what the original challenge was:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84214.msg2222976#msg2222976

Tom Bishop has had plenty of time to produce his near earth moon calculations and has failed to do this and as such has lost the challenge. There are sources aplenty that will provide detailed methodology on how the distance to the moon and it’s dimensions are calculated, many of them are linked in earlier posts. What is pretty conclusive is that all the different methods used all give the same answers that are directly at odds with flat earth belief. What is also pretty conclusive is flat earthers like Tom Bishop haven't a clue on how they can square their beliefs with reality. This is why no flat earth calculations were forthcoming, as there are none.

Timeisup 1. Tom Bishop 0

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #350 on: February 28, 2020, 02:54:28 AM »
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #351 on: February 28, 2020, 03:19:33 AM »
Timies quote

and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)



Probaly right here...

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #352 on: February 28, 2020, 03:21:02 AM »
Oh   i see
TomB is playing word games.
Timies was not supposed to issue a challenge back.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 41972
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #353 on: February 28, 2020, 08:42:08 AM »
Stop spamming.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #354 on: February 28, 2020, 10:50:39 AM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #355 on: February 28, 2020, 11:36:29 AM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #356 on: February 28, 2020, 11:45:20 AM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
You petty fool.
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.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #357 on: February 28, 2020, 12:31:44 PM »
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.
Did you even read the challenge in the OP, or your comment which started it all?

"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."

It isn't about RE justifying itself; it is about comparing and contrasting between RE and FE and seeing which is better at describing reality; it is about RE beating FE, which it has done quite well; or if FE beats RE or if they are on equal footing.

The topic chosen was the moon, specifically its size and distance.

For the RE side, there are a few different ways to determine the size and distance, some of which rely upon the other measurement. But they are consistent across Earth. They do vary with time, because the distance to the moon varies with time.

Meanwhile, the best FE can come up with is appealing to ignorance of how light behaves over such vast distances, with no real justification for why light should magically start bending to produce observations consistent with a RE.
Without that, they do have some simple experiments to determine size and/or distance, but they produce vastly different results depending on which locations are chosen.

So I would say RE vastly beats FE.

Even just a simple consideration shows that.
Based upon the fact that all of Earth that can see the moon sees roughly the same section of the moon, just rotated, but not squished or stretched, shows that the moon must be very far away, in basically the same direction for everyone. Otherwise we should be seeing it significantly differently from different locations. If the moon was round that would be different sections of the moon visible depending on angle. If the moon was flat, then it would appear squashed along one axis as you are viewing it from an angle.
So that would mean that everyone sees it from basically the same angle, which means it must be quite some distance away from Earth, many times the size of Earth.
This then means in order to explain the apparent difference in direction, the reference, i.e. Earth's surface, must be different in different locations, i.e. Earth must be round.

So we have a RE, with simple physics, or a FE with completely unsubstantiated magic bendy light to produce observations which are consistent with a RE.

I would say that is RE beating FE.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #358 on: February 28, 2020, 12:59:08 PM »
Wow, clarifying yourself in a follow up post within 5 minutes is spamming.  Quality moderation at its finest. 
Enjoy your ban. If you have suggestions and concerns I imagine you can find where they belong.
You petty fool.
Enjoy your ban.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1088
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #359 on: February 28, 2020, 01:09:44 PM »
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.

If I could remind you of a couple of facts Mr. Bishop.

Fact 1 You said:-

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.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)


Fact 2 I said:-

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 (aprox)
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.


I take it you accepted the challenge? The challenge clearly asks for proof of your own belief that the moon is smaller and nearer to the earth than is generally accepted. You during this discussion have been reluctant to divulge the actual numbers you actually believe in. If you don't agree with the figures generally accepted then what figures do you accept? If you have other figures that you adhere to where did they come from? One would normally expect figures such as these to be arrived at through some calculation. The challenge was for you to give your own figures and explain how you came by them. I have, according to the challenge provided a number of methods used to calculate both the distance to the moon and its diameter, while you have provided nothing. What you have tried to do is pick holes in the methods I have presented in an effort to throw up a smokescreen and avoid presenting calculations and figures you don't have. You also avoided dealing with the speed of radio waves as again you have no answer to that one either.  If you had them you would have presented them, the fact you have not presented them I think indicates to the world that you haven't a clue, and due to that you lost the challenge, which is why the score on this particular challenge is:

Timeisup 1  Tom Bishop 0