Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 104  Next >
21
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 20, 2017, 04:35:04 PM »
"AlienHunter" clearly did not understand the link. A proof like 10 + 10 = 20 is not valid in all situations. It is highly dependant on underlying assumptions of the model involved. It is not a universal proof that 20 is twice as much as 10.

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Quote
The change in heat between 0oC and 10oC is the same as between 10oC and 20oC. But watch out! 20oC is not twice as hot as 10oC! Why? Interval scales have arbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero).

22
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 18, 2017, 03:16:49 PM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

23
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: June 17, 2017, 10:45:54 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earthlings, explain this please.
« on: June 17, 2017, 10:03:34 PM »
Now some models say that moon half dark and half lit is because of the reflection of the sun, but I'm telling you here that if this is true, then the half lit and half dark should always be level because the moon and sun in your model is at the same height, so half moon or even less than half moon being lit, should always be straight from our viewing, until you tell me that the sun changes it's elevation which cause the reflection to be angular sometimes, which is insane in a flat earth model.

Why is it insane for the moon or the sun to change elevation?

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Journey to the end
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:40:46 PM »
Who told you that there was an edge?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is behind Antarctica?
« on: June 13, 2017, 09:48:02 PM »
Unknown

Hard to imagine that in the age of long-range jets that no one has found out.

How many jets have flown blindly into the Southern icy tundras?
...and how many have safely landed at the south pole when delivering supplies to the many hundreds of people who live there all year round.  You can "Skype" chat with some of them.

Navigating to a certain coordinate definitely does not sound like flying blindly into the Southern Tundras to me.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« on: June 13, 2017, 04:31:24 PM »
As we are empericists, the only acceptable empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.

I'm sorry - but that's simply not true.   You propose "mechanisms" for all sorts of observations - your Wiki is full of them.

For example - you observe that the sun sets - and you go one step further and say that the reason is "perspective" - so right there, you used your observation of the setting sun to come up with a "special" kind of perspective as a mechanism.

The concept of perspective is an empirical concept which anyone can see. The mechanism for the "gravity" of the cosmos, such as hypothetical graviton puller particles, are not a empirical concepts. It is neither seen or experienced, and so may as well be fictitious altogether.

Quote
I asked why (if this is perspective) the sun doesn't get much smaller at the horizon because it's further away...and you tell me that the light of the sun is too bright and the laws of perspective don't apply...so again, you came up with a new mechanism (perspective works differently for bright light) to explain your observation.

It's not a new mechanism. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reported the effect of enlarging light in 1850. We must assume that the effect has always been with us. It is a magnification effect we can see with bright lights in the distance. Very empirical.

Quote
If you truly did what you just claimed - then you'd have to say "I observe that the sun sets - but I'm an empiricist - so I'm not in the business of explaining why it does that."...just as you observe the motions of the heavenly bodies but claim not to be in the business of explaining why they move as they do.

Explanations are fine if there is evidence behind those explanations; not pure speculation, as is the norm in Round Earth sciences.

Quote
This is what gets FET into trouble - by failing to meticulously search for underlying mechanisms for everything you see, you get into contradictions - but you don't go the extra mile to fix that.

We have discussed the mechanisms we describe very thoroughly. A mechanism is not adopted without empirical evidence behind it. There is empirical evidence for an upwardly accelerating earth, for example, which is why that mechanism is used as an explanation for what keeps us pinned to the surface.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 13, 2017, 12:27:25 PM »
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?

 For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?

(is this question ridiculous?)

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« on: June 13, 2017, 12:21:20 PM »
The question is WHY?    Why do they do these really complex moves - which just happen to precisely mimic what they'd do if they were going around the sun in a simple ellipse?

The planets in FE are also going around the sun in a simple ellipse. So...

Quote
If we're not accepting religious explanations (as indeed we should not) - then WHY do they make these crazy complicated motions?

Crazy complicated motions such as passing between the observer and the sun?

Quote
This is the hardest part of FET astronomy - not whether things like transits, eclipses, seasons, etc could happen - it's a question of what simple natural laws predict these motions?

As we are empericists, the only acceptable and empirical answer to this query is that the motions are visible to us, but the mechanisms are unknown.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is behind Antarctica?
« on: June 13, 2017, 05:13:10 AM »
Unknown

Hard to imagine that in the age of long-range jets that no one has found out.

How many jets have flown blindly into the Southern icy tundras?

31
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 13, 2017, 02:58:39 AM »
Quote
Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.
Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.

32
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 12, 2017, 05:53:23 PM »
A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.
Interesting isn't it?
Should be interesting to see just how far this Russian thing goes.  We were told that the voting machines weren't tampered with, that the efforts failed.

But what if they didn't?

Pure speculation, obviously.  But just interesting to see how so many polls got it wrong without any reason then we find out Russia tried to influence the election.  Probably a coincidence.

No, it's not interesting. The Huffington Post polls are clearly not credible, and your excuses are irrational.

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 12, 2017, 03:37:19 PM »
A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 12, 2017, 02:39:16 PM »
Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (bonus Rasmussen poll) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Huffington Post poll? Aren't those the same people who constantly posted pro-Clinton polls throughout the election and who predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning?

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 12, 2017, 05:23:36 AM »
All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

I am afraid I must question your reading comprehension. The preceding question was about Trump being under oath. It makes more sense that Trump was answering talking about himself being under oath, not Comey.

36
Psalms 19:1 in King James' says: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
More modern translations say "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

Doesn't seem to support either RET or FET as far as I can see.

Why do we need a modern translation? Was translation not possible in the past?

37
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Moon
« on: June 11, 2017, 06:38:59 PM »
It's called Frequently Asked Questions. If you are interested in a topic like the phases of the moon I would suggest looking at a page dedicated to that topic.

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 11, 2017, 05:58:13 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.
1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath. He is responding to the question "Would you be willing to speak under oath" which immediately preceded his response, not the question you made up, and not the question trekky made up on the previous page. Read the transcript. It's right there in your quote. It's right there. Why would you just make things up?

Trump first mocks the assertion of demanding a pledge of allegiance from someone you barely know and then questions why he would go under oath and announce that he demanded allegiance from someone he barely knew. It is a ridiculous  scenerio to ask for allegiance from someone you don't know. He never asked for that, and he wouldn't say that he did under oath.

39
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is behind Antarctica?
« on: June 11, 2017, 03:57:06 PM »
Unknown

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 104  Next >