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 ... 462  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 31, 2022, 08:35:59 PM »
Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

This lawyer says it is legal -

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 31, 2022, 07:15:43 PM »
Solid research. Looks like a lot of different things/activities may cause harm to humans. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yep, it's a mystery.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 31, 2022, 01:03:39 AM »
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I was simply going to lurk here, but this is such utter bullshit I can't help it.

Can we simulate and model the whirlpools of the deception pass bridge?

Of course we can't because we don't have the math to do it.  Do they exist in reality?  I've seen them myself.  Perhaps you should too, they're pretty amazing at times.

Well yes, if you can't model it with the supposed physics that govern it then you can't claim to know the underlying physics. People in this thread and on this forum are claiming that they do know the underlying physics and that their RE model works. They are wrong.

Also, unlike seeing a whirlpool as a whole, we have never seen the entire solar system outside of space agencies.

Quote from: ohplease
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. Regardless of your personal ignorance on the matter, the Three Body Problem is a known problem. See the quotes here:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

You guys are now agreeing with this and are stamping your feet like children claiming that the models are useful in other ways, and make additional claims about how space agencies use the models. None of this proves that the bodies are using selective gravity and is contradictory to the concept of universal gravitation. Simply, you don't have a coherent model. Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 07:03:38 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And you will again - or someone will, there's always someone willing to feed the troll it seems.
What Tom repeatedly fails to understand, or pretends to, is that breaking a problem which we currently can't solve down into smaller problems which we can is a perfectly valid technique.

The problem is that planets, moons, and asteroids traversing the solar system in the real scenario would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical fudges. If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

Quote from: stack
I've read all that. I'm just trying to figure out the significance as it pertains to FE. Is this some sort of argument for UA?

As well, using the numerical solutions seem to get a fairly high level of accuracy. Perhaps not perfect, but very good. And utilized with alot of success. So why is so important to FE that we don't quite yet have an analytical solution?

You can use unrelated gravitational physics, limited gravitational interaction, and mathematical fudges to come to any result you want. None of it shows that universal gravitation actually works to simulate astronomical systems. That it needs to be done this way does more to discredit it than support it.

It should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, for the paths of asteroids to be explainable, and for solar systems and galaxies to exist. Yet the difficulty simulating this undermines accepted theories of astronomy.

Quote from: ohplease
The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.

Your model simply doesn't work and the excuses are poor.

Quote from: DuncanDoenitz
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 06:56:44 AM »
If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that it does not use a full version of gravity where gravity is universal. It uses a series of independent two body problems or other cheats. See the link I gave:

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 03:30:44 AM »
Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.

Yes, we have been through this before, and you were wrong. Numerical solutions are not solutions which use the full physics of the situation. We have a page for you to address here:

Suggestions & Concerns / TFES Flat Earth Video Subdomain
« on: July 29, 2022, 02:48:47 AM »
In the past we have discussed the possibility of creating a custom video subdomain gallery with Flat Earth YouTube feeds. One option may be a Word Press plugin called Smash Balloon which can build dynamic grid galleries of YouTube videos. The plugin is smart enough to not load the heavier video elements in the gallery until the user starts interacting with it, for performance reasons.

See the YouTube demos on the Smash Balloon site:

It seems that you can make nice looking galleries based on a single channel or from a YouTube playlist composed of multiple channels. Notably for this project it also appears possible to build a gallery based on custom YouTube searches:

There are some fairly advanced features such as customizing the information the video shows in the gallery, and adding a button at the end of the video back to the site.

I could see such a gallery, or galleries, as a feature item that might even eventually replace the main content of the front page. It would be a video site which unifies and harnesses the content of the wider Flat Earth community. People would go to tfes to see the latest Flat Earth related content. It would capture attention, increase visitor return, and cause the interest to grow.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 12:20:26 AM »
You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM »
Quote from: stack
So what? Children can’t navigate anything but a straight path? I don’t even know what you are talking about. Your basically saying humans can’t get anywhere unless it’s a straight path. God forbid a human has to attempt to navigate down a hall and make a turn down another hall. Obviously just too overwhelming for humans.

I clearly was pointing out that there were always walls and doors between the protestors and Pence. Pence was not out in the open to the protestors. Your fiction that the protestors just needed to do this and that and get to Pence is fallacious, as Pence was always behind walls and doors, and kept purposely so.

Quote from: stack
That Bobbit woman who got shot was climbing through a smashed window in a barricaded locked door leading to the hall to the house chamber. Locked doors didn’t seem to be an issue for the rioters, now did they?

Do you even bother reading what you write? You wrote a sentence and immediately contradicted yourself in the next. The door obviously did create an issue for them. An unarmed woman was shot trying to circumvent the barrier. No one climbed through the barrier after that. It provided a squeeze point which contained the protestors.

Quote from: stack
Yes, there are walls in the building. There are also hallways and corridors that seemingly allow humans to move about the building without bumping into walls.

Yes, the building has doors too! And magically the mobs broke through barricaded doors and smashed through windows to get in. Doors be damned.

Wrong. You just pointed out to us how they did not get through any door.

Quote from: stack
More fun facts about doors. So they smashed through barricaded, locked doors and windows to get inside. Then smashed through barricaded locked doors and windows to get deeper inside the capital. And they smashed through barricaded and locked doors to get into the house & senate chambers as well as many offices.

Again, wrong. They were not able to get anywhere. They couldn't get through the barricade that Ashley Babbit tried going through. They had a problem finding or getting to the legislators.

Quote from: stack
- Doors and windows didn’t seem to be a problem for the rioters to get through anywhere else in the capitol. If there even was a door between Pence and the rioters, why was that door so special, unlike all the other breached ones?

Again, wrong. The protestors were not able to breach the Ashley Babbit door.

- Insurrectionist rioters got within 40’ of pence, you know, the VP of the US at the time
- Chants of “Pence is a traitor” could be heard by lawmakers
- The rioters were just a hallway, take a right, down a hallway, take a left away from your VP

All irrelevant if they cannot get through any door and the security inside the building was able to avoid or repel protestors.

Quote from: stack
- You are wrong: McConnell was the Senate Sgt of Arms boss at the time and asked for his resignation - Schumer said he would fire the guy as soon as he became his boss after innauguration:

McConnell asking for his resignation does not mean that McConnell alone was in charge of security tactics and security decisions. That is a terrible deduction, and obviously incorrect. There was clearly a wider group deciding these things than just McConnell.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 09:30:57 AM »
"Navigate around walls...", "Not a straight path"???  A child can't walk 10 feet down a hall, take a right, walk 20 feet,  take a left and walk 10 feet?

The child would know that he did not walk a straight path. There are clearly walls in the way that would have to be navigated around, with potentially locked doors. You have failed to make your case that there were no walls between the protestors and Pence, or that the Capitol building is a building entirely without doors.

There are actually plenty of doors, and likely multiple route options security could take to avoid protestors:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 09:06:35 AM »
Wrong again:

On January 7, 2021, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would fire the incumbent Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, if he was not fired or did not resign prior to Schumer's being appointed as Senate Majority Leader.[9] This announcement was made the day after the Capitol Building was attacked by a violent group of supporters of President Donald Trump. The attack resulted in the death of at least 5 people and extensive damage of more than $2 million of the building itself.[10] On the same day, Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately.[11] Deputy Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway was announced by McConnell as the acting sergeant-at-arms.[12] On January 20, 2021, Eugene Goodman was announced as the acting deputy Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate when stepping out onto the inauguration platform ahead of Kamala Harris.[13][14]

Looks like the only person who could fire the S0fArms was McConnell. Usually your boss is the one who fires you...

Incorrect. Regardless of who can fire officials or request a resignation, the Capitol security receives procedural orders from a committee:

"Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a trusted Pelosi ally who chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics, said Sund misled her about the security preparations for the Jan. 6. session."

Zoe Lofgran is neither Pelosi or Schumer, and chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics. In this case they were reprimanding the Capitol Chief of Police. So, you are wrong that the security logistics are handled by a single person.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 08:54:35 AM »
Where are the walls and doors? Just follow the red arrows. Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

A child could see that that's not a straight path between those two points. Between those two points walls are in the way. You would need to navigate around the walls, through potentially locked doors. The image clearly does not illustrate any doors, and your posting it as evidence that the Capitol building is a building entirely without doors is faulty.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 08:41:20 AM »
Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Clearly no walls or doors in the way...

Red = Rioters
Yellow = Your VP

Wrong. There are clearly walls in the way between those two points.

Also, the Capitol building is not built without doors.  ::)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 08:31:44 AM »
Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer

I think your source doesn't quite have the facts straight.

The House Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell, a Republican who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Incorrect. The Senate Sergeant at Arms actually serve a committee, of which Chuck Schumer was a part of at the time:

"As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves. The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate wing of the Capitol and the Senate office buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, Chamber, and galleries."

A December 2020 page shows that Chuck Schumer was part of this committee along with Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Durbin and various RINOs. So yes, Schumer was involved in this decision.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 08:17:19 AM »
Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 08:10:53 AM »
I have assumed they probably wouldn't have gone directly left and tried to burrow through the walls.
My 4 year old boy is apparently better at mazes than you, he helped me work out a route which doesn't go through walls:

It sounds like you need to smarten up your kid. A smart child would figure out that there could be potentially locked doors there.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 07:43:07 AM »
Quote from: stack
So if a mob that seemingly wants to forcefully, perhaps physically stop you from doing something and they are 40 feet away, some chanting "Hang Tom Bishop!" and a cop comes by and wisks you to safety, that's a "no harm, no foul" situation for you?

That is literally no harm, correct.

You are arguing that National Guard should have been deployed to the capitol steps to enact violence against a very large crowd of thousands of people who could have easily trampled them, or could have suddenly reversed course in fear and trampled themselves, when the solution was just to move some people a few rooms away to the secured bunker. Whoever came up with that plan was clearly pretty intelligent. Your plan, not so much. Your plan involves adding in more violence with a potentially deadly result.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM »
"Trump's defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6 - CNNPolitics"

Oh no, the narrative

Where does Trump claim that he ordered Mark Miller to deploy 10,000 troops?

Trump said that he gave that number to the Capitol to consider:

    “I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and said I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

This message to the Capitol does not involve Mark Miller, and nor is it an order.

In his conversation with Mark Miller that he indicated that he wanted sufficient National Guard to be at the protest and delegated their use to him:

This passage from the Inspector General's DOD Review contradicts the fundamental accusations of the January 6 investigation and Trump's role in the purported 'insurrection'. In the review it indicates that Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard or Soldiers at the protest to make sure it was a safe event:

From p.31 -

An article from NBC 15 News affirms that Trump did indeed offer the National Guard to the Capitol:

    "WASHINGTON (TND) — A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump’s Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard’s assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials that were said to be false by liberal fact-checkers.


    According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6."

The Capitol Police then rejected the offer. From the included document:

Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer:

    "Just hours after Gallagher’s rejection of DOD’s offer for troops, Capitol Police issued a new warning to its commanders and executives, as well as to the two congressionally appointed House and Senate Sergeants at Arms responsible for congressional security, the timeline shows.


    Within 24-hours of the new assessment’s circulation, then-chief of the Capitol Police Steve Sund changed course and began requesting permission to deploy National Guard troops from the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms – both of whom report to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer, respectively.

    “COP Sund asks Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefing with law enforcement partner and revised intelligence Assessment,” the timeline notes. “COP Sund's request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tell COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard's ability to support a request if needed.”"

Trump wanted the National Guard to be there more so than Pelosi and Schumer.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 27, 2022, 06:50:19 AM »
The building wasn’t empty, evacuated yet...

There was just ‘40 feet between the vice president and the mob’ on Jan. 6, Aguilar says

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.

Anyone can see that there are several walls there between Pence and the protestors. The fact is that nothing happened to Pence and his security detail succeeded.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM »
You mean an apex of hanging Pence and running a spear through Pelosi?

None of that happened. The military officials overseeing this knew what they were doing. You are clearly making baseless criticisms of how it should have been handled.

Quote from: stack
A building where everyone had to be evacuated because of fear of harm from and angry mob that broke through security lines smashing windows and doors to get in?  ::)
So you think the mob’s intent was to break inside, a few people dying as a result, because they just wanted to “tour” the Capitol?

If everyone was evacuated then there was no risk to life by letting them go inside the building. If any police officers died during the event it again shows the folly of engaging a large crowd of people with non-lethal weapons, and also shows how bad your suggestion is that additional personnel should have been standing there trying to quell the protestors.

The forward momentum and weight of a crowd of thousands of people can potentially trample and kill groups of soldiers trying to use non-lethal crowd control. Many people have died through trampling, and is a reason for why one should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater. A large crowd of people has the potential to be very dangerous even without weapons. It is absolutely odd that you are claiming that you know better than the officials  in charge of this.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 462  Next >