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 ... 463 464 [465] 466 467 ... 513  Next >
9281
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
« on: December 27, 2015, 06:39:29 AM »
Thank you, Thork. I am gathering some notes for this chapter.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe?  ???
Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?

A theory doesn't help you understand the universe. A theory is a theory, a possible explanation for how things are. How does a possible explanation help you understand anything?

That aside, in the illustration is all wrong.

Scientific Method is

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

The Zetetic Method is

Ask a question -> Perform a series of experiments to test and compare known possible results -> Conclusion

The Zetetic Method is clearly superior, as you are testing contradicting possibilities rather than a single possibility and drawing a conclusion the first time you get a positive result. The Scientific Method leads you to half-truths and bad science.

9282
It is important to understand that the "discoveries" NASA makes are things which astronomers of the past long predicted under a Round Earth model.

9283
According to that article Jobs fought his cancer through acupuncture sessions, drinking fruit juices, and visiting "spiritualists".

How does that compare to consuming garlic and peppers, natural substances which have been shown to kill cancer?

9284

Again, if a little garlic can kill cancer, why can't a lot of garlic cure cancer?

A little salt is necessary for the body, but a lot of salt can harm the body so the physicians say.

It has not been shown that the people treated with garlic therapy have suffered harmful effects. Please cite a valid criticism.

9285
I am afraid that you do not make sense... going from there is a chemical in garlic that has properties that help fight cancer to a lot of garlic will cure cancer is a huge leap and not backed by any evidence or research. On the contrary, research does not back your idea.

Source? A simple google search shows that there has been a lot of research showing that garlic kills cancer:

http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/garlic-kills-cancer-cells-uct-study-1.1887784

http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/pr/newscenter/2013/garlic.html#.VmyigPmDFBc

http://truedemocracyparty.net/2013/11/garlic-the-natural-cure-8-scientific-studies-that-prove-garlic-kills-cancer-dead-dead-dead/

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/01/06/garlic-kills-brain-cancer-cells-without-side-effects/

Quote
Do you even know the mechanisms behind the cancer diseases? Do you look at the research being done and the results? There are many foods that prevent cancer, but eating them in any quantity does not mean that you will not get cancer - it only reduces the risks. And they are not universal either. They are specific to certain regions of the body. For instance, broccoli helps reduce chances of colon cancer by up to 50%.

Pushing garlic as a beneficial preventative for cancer - not a bad idea.
Pushing garlic as a cure for cancer - fallacious.

Again, if a little garlic can kill cancer, why can't a lot of garlic cure cancer?

9286
Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« on: November 15, 2015, 04:44:19 AM »
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.


9287
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Cosmographia
« on: October 25, 2015, 01:25:29 AM »
You need to read my responses more carefully.

Electricity, flow of bosons running through subquark strings, through a wire, is just the start, the beginning of this phenomenon.

There is electricity flowing in baryons, mesons and quarks.

The most powerful kind of electricity is what modern science calls bioelectricity.

If electricity and bioelectricity involve different particles and processes, then it seems that they are two different phenomena. The existence of one phenomena cannot be used as proof of the other. This "bioelectricity" keeping us to the earth would need to be tested directly.

9288
Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:40:20 PM »
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.

No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager.  ;)

It would me more difficult to explain consistency than deny inconsistency.

Please do. Say this experiment was conducted and seven or eight photos from different points of the earth show no difference in the 'distance' of the horizon. What would your explanation be?

If the tests were appropriately designed, and horizon looked the same in all instances, then that would be strong evidence in favor of a Round Earth.

9289
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Cosmographia
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:31:13 PM »
But the experiments performed were with regular electron electricity through wires and capacitors, not this "bioelectricity". Why would you give us an irrelevant experiment to explain why we are pinned to the earth's surface?

9290
Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:26:48 PM »
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.

No more quickly than a flat-earther would attribute a lack of discrepancies in curvature to exactly the same reasons I'd wager.  ;)

It would me more difficult to explain consistency than deny inconsistency.

9291
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Cosmographia
« on: October 22, 2015, 01:06:58 AM »
Look, sandokhan, according to those experiments, if you pass an electric current through a capacitor, the weight of that body might lessen or increase, or otherwise spin, depending on the position of its "pole".

This is all fine and well, but what does it tell us about gravity? My body doesn't have comparable electric currents running through it. How can it be said that this phenomenon has anything to do with what pins us to the earth's surface?

You are making rather large logical leaps. Rather than linking us to pdfs, would you please explain, in simple terms, why this phenomena should have anything to do with me being pinned to the earth? Dumb it down for us. Make it really simple. "because xxx and xxx happen, therefore it must be gravity".

Thank you.

9292
Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?
« on: October 21, 2015, 07:04:44 PM »
Yes, but Round Earthers would attribute any discrepancy in curvature to dawn/dusk, the type of lens used, optical illusion mirages, etc.

9293
Flat Earth Community / Re: Weather Balloon?
« on: October 21, 2015, 06:09:05 PM »
We don't deny that there is some curvature at high altitudes from a balloon. A circle is curved. Looking down at a large circle will, of course, produce some curvature to the horizon. That is to be expected.

Consider MIT's $150 Edge-of-Space Camera. This scene can be easily explained as the result of looking down at an illuminated circle:


9294
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« on: October 21, 2015, 12:44:08 AM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?
Yes.  What are your thoughts on Doppler shift in GPS signals?

Who measured this?

Three 'new' questions for Tom Bishop.

-1- How is it possible that some people are 100% sure that the earth is a sphere and
that some people are 100% certain that the earth is flat?

-2- Is there except for long distance observations another solid evidence that the earth is flat?

-3- Some say that as the dark side of the earth (night time) is facing a different part of the universe during December-January and June-July (in the heliocentric model) you can figure out what the shape is of the earth. Is this possible and did you check this?

1.The only people claiming 100% certainty are Round Earthers. The Zetetic philosophy back to Rowbotham holds the concept of truth as being subject to change, based on the best available evidence.

2. Our everyday experience suggests that the earth is flat, and this is not an unreasonable starting point. The Flat Earth Society has shown the holes in Aristotile's "3 Proofs" and has shown NASA's media to be questionable. Once a piece of evidence is shown to be credible and difficult to dispute, the Flat Earth Society will cease to exist.

If NASA were a honest and transparent organization they would open their research to third party peer review. For example, many question whether the Lunar Lander is actually a poorly crafted prop. NASA could alleviate such concerns by allowing a third party to inspect one of the allegedly real Lunar Landers sitting in a museum and authenticate that it is actually a 6 billion dollar space-worthy piece of engineering.

3. The stars passing by overhead from east to west only suggests that they are passing by from east to west. The stars moving northward or southward in the sky over the course of the year only suggests that they are moving that direction in the sky over the course of the year.

The interplay of the movement of the stars have not "proven the earth to be round". It must first be proven that the earth is actually rotating, otherwise the path of the stars can be attributed to other causes. The works of astronomers Tycho Brache and Giovanni Riccioli show many tests which suggests the earth does not rotate.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf

Quote
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.

The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.

If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7

The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.


See the bolded above.

Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:

Quote
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.

9295
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« on: October 21, 2015, 12:14:11 AM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?

If it makes the difference, this question was totally sincere:

Suppose you could have a one-hour conversation with any human being, alive or dead; he or she will answer any question you have with complete honesty; the conversation is only with you, and you can't record any of it; whom would you choose and why?

That would be Diogenes of Sinope.

http://classicalwisdom.com/diogenes-of-sinope/

Quote
Diogenes was constantly dirty, disheveled, and often smelled of filth. He urinated and defecated in public, and it was not uncommon for him to literally spit in the faces of those who disagreed with him. For this reason, Diogenes was sometimes referred to as “Diogenes the dog”.

Rather than being offended, Diogenes reveled in the idea of being more like a dog. A dog, he believed, was more in touch with nature and therefore more closely in tune with true happiness. The dog does not care for social status or material possessions; the dog does not make himself a slave to the superficial desires that so plague the hearts of men. The dog lives life in the present and does not concern itself with abstract notions that might damage the soul.

The philosopher believed very firmly that man is not above nature. We are inescapably a part of it, and the further we retreat from this truth, hiding behind our lavish houses and material treasures, the further we withdraw from true virtue.

A few antecdotes from theunboundspirit.com:

When Alexander the Great addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, Diogenes replied "Yes, stand a little out of my sunshine"

Diogenes was washing his clothes and dishes on a river, then Plato approached and said 'Diogenes, if you worked for the king, you wouldn't be washing your clothes and dishes' then Diogenes replied 'Plato, if you washed your clothes and dishes, you wouldn't have to work for the king'

Diogenes stood outside a brothel, shouting, “A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore . . . ” Men entering the house threw him a coin or two to shut him up. Eventually Diogenes had collected enough money and he too went into the brothel.

He is also purported to have said "Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves?"

A heckler in the crowd shouted out, “My mind is not made like that, I can’t be bothered with philosophy.” “Why do you bother to live,” Diogenes retorted, “if you can’t be bothered to live properly?”

“It’s my fate to steal,” pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes. “Then it is also your fate to be beaten,” said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

Often when he was begging, Diogenes would be spat on by the people who passed him. Diogenes would ignore this and simply wipe his face with his sleeve. When ridiculed for his passive behavior, Diogenes said, “Since men endure being wetted by the sea in order to net a mere herring, should I not endure being sprinkled to net my dinner?”

A famous athlete was making his triumphal entry into the city after another successful games. As he was carried along, he was unable to tear his eyes away from the many beautiful women among the onlookers.
“Look at our bave victor,” remarked Diogenes, “taken captive by every girl he sees.”

“Why is it, Diogenes, that pupils leave you to go to other teachers, but rarely do they leave them to come to you?”
“Because,” replied Diogenes, “one can make eunuchs out of men, but no one can make a man out of eunuchs.”

9297
Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE
« on: October 09, 2015, 01:54:33 AM »
They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

9298
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.

9299
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask Tom Bishop
« on: October 01, 2015, 11:54:48 PM »
Are there any other questions for Tom Bishop?

9300
Right now, I am really happy you are not a doctor (specifically an oncologist)... you would kill a lot of patients.

If I were an oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of my patients would be dead within 5 years.

According to that same article, in the 1930's before modern oncology, 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years. 1 in 4 would people would have survived by their own natural survival mechanisms without any medical help at all.

From the article:

Quote
How Many People Are Surviving Cancer?

In the early 1900s, few cancer patients had any hope of long-term survival. In the 1930s, about one in four was alive five years after treatment. About 491,400 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who get cancer this year, are expected to be alive five years after diagnosis.

So in the 1930's 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years

"This year" (modern) the statistics are that 6 out of 10, or about 60% of cancer patients, die within five years

Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whooping 15% survival rate, and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. So how great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 463 464 [465] 466 467 ... 513  Next >