The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: ∂G/∂x on June 03, 2007, 04:46:28 PM

Title: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 03, 2007, 04:46:28 PM
I know some FEers (Dogplatter especially) have been frustrated by the confusion between Flat Earth Theory (FET) and the version of it proposed by Tom Bishop (hereafter called TFET). Tom has been known to make very outlandish claims regarding the Flat Earth, and I thought I'd post some of them here in Q&C so that Flat Earthers (no REers please, unless you definitely know what you're talking about) can make clear which of Tom Bishop's various statements are not endorsed by the FES as a whole. I thought this might be helpful as it is difficult for newbies (and oldies, on occasion) to differ between FE canon and something Tom has just made up, simply because he is the most frequent FE poster on Flat Earth D&D.

Here goes (Quotations here are used for clarity of structure, but are not verbatim reproductions of Tom's words):

1.
Quote
The Flat Earth does not rotate

Tom has claimed it both ways, so I'm a little confused which is part of FET.

2.
Quote
The Earth is a (potentially?) infinite plane

Does FET hold an infinite Earth, a finite one, or an unknown in this area?

3.
Quote
The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...

4.
Quote
Satellites do exist; they orbit a common barycentre like the Sun, Moon and stars

Tom holds that gravitation by mass exists in FE, but not on Earth. He states satellites are held in space by the gravitational attraction of the various celestial bodies.

5.
Quote
Most photos from space (not the Apollo 17 ones) are real. They are consistent with FE.

While this has gone largely uncontested by REers as yet, it seems a big step away from the conspiracy-oriented ideas of FET.

6.
Quote
Those in low Earth Orbit (including commercial space passengers of the future) will see a curved horizon, consistent with FE.

Similar to above.

7.
Quote
Aircraft flight times in the Southern hemisphere are shortened by 400mph jet streams, or the flights are delayed to compensate.

Also met with incredulity by REers, this doesn't seem like the kind of argument FET would employ.

8.
Quote
The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

The ice wall question is a big confusion spot. I know there may not be FET consensus, but is this TFET statement correct in your eyes?

9.
Quote
The conspiracy does not extend to the RSA, as they do not have experience of higher altitude orbits necessary to observe the difference between FE and RE.

As above with satellites.

There may well be more, but this is all I could think of right now. If anyone would like to add some feel free (as long as they are good/important ones). If Tom feels I have misrepresented him in some way; please correct me. I am confident I can find supporting statements for each one I have listed in the many threads we have discussed them in.

The FAQ does answer some of these, but it's age and brevity make it unclear what parts of the theory have been changed or added to. Tom's additions may or may not be welcome in FET.

I posted this in Q&C because I didn't intend these points to be debated in and of themselves, just that they be distinguished FET from TFET. Thanks for your help.

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 04, 2007, 01:13:26 AM
11. Tom Claims that water remains flat and level even when flowing downhill as opposed to being on an incline
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:46:10 AM
Gin, all that is correct. I am prepared to justify each of my claims with references.

Quote
11. Tom Claims that water remains flat and level even when flowing downhill as opposed to being on an incline

If you had actually read my posts, you would have noted that the Old Bedford Canal contained standing water. Dr. Rowbotham tells us that the water in the Old Bedford Canal is very often completely still.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 05:47:01 AM
He said....where's the proof?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:49:29 AM
Quote
He said....where's the proof?

From the first page of Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm):

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 05:53:21 AM
That's not proof
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:58:12 AM
That's not proof

Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months. I'm pretty sure that he would know whether it flowed or not.


Even if the water did imperceptibly flow, the water must still obey the convexity of the earth's 'gravity'.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 05:59:16 AM
Suure that's proof  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:03:02 AM
Quote
Suure that's proof

What part do you disagree with, that the Old Bedford Canal does not flow or that water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity even while flowing?

The Old Bedford Canal is the same location where Alfred Wallace and John Hampden conducted their tests and trials. Those two scientists found the canal to be a satisfying stretch of water upon which it would be possible to tell whether or not convexity really did or did not exist. There we have two independent sources who found the canal to be a satisfying location for a test.

Perhaps you should either take a trip to Cambridge and see for yourself, or give them the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:07:49 AM
Quote
He said....where's the proof?

From the first page of Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm):


"In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists."

Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home. I've wagered money that you can't.

Recall your infamous rant ...
[expletive deleted] ...[M]aking up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is against.

Dr. Rowbotham's entire philosophy was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.
[/list]
It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause. Cutting and pasting the same refuted text over and over again won't work--in the least.

(To anyone not familiar with TomB's shameful tactics, please do an advanced search on the text of six or more words from most any of TomB's posting to see how it's been refuted before. TomB appears to just be trolling for new people to annoy without regard to debating the issues or further human understanding.)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:09:25 AM
Quote
Suure that's proof

What part do you disagree with, that the Old Bedford Canal does not flow or that water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity even while flowing?
You're wrong on both accounts.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 04, 2007, 06:10:28 AM
Bet if I looked on an OS map, I'd see contour lines. I'll concede defeat when I check and find there aren't any...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:13:44 AM
Quote
Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home.

I have nothing further to prove to you. You are free to deny my observation as much as you'd like.

Quote
Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

Even nearly stationary water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity. Which part about that do you not understand?

Quote
You're wrong on both accounts.

Maybe you should back up your claims with solid experimental or observational evidence Gulliver. It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause.

Prove to us that the Old Bedford Canal really does flow in contradiction to Dr. Rowbotham's claims.  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 04, 2007, 06:19:35 AM
do you know where the OB Canal is relative to cambridge? North, South? I really want to check this out because we've got a heap of OS maps here at work and if I knew where to look I could check it for both of us in about 5 minutes
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:23:32 AM
Quote
Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home.

I have nothing further to prove to you. You are free to deny my observation as much as you'd like.

Quote
You're wrong on both accounts.

Maybe you should back up your claims with solid experimental or observational evidence Gulliver. It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause.

Prove to us that the Old Bedford Canal really does flow in contradiction to Dr. Rowbotham's claims.  ::)
Sorry, TomB, I leave it to you to prove your claims. I've done my share of the experimental work. Please recall the unrefuted SunSpots.xlsx and the purchase of computer-controlled telescope. I also see that Gayer has done quite the remarkable job of checking the contour lines. I think that should be proof enough for even you.

Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:24:42 AM
do you know where the OB Canal is relative to cambridge? North, South? I really want to check this out because we've got a heap of OS maps here at work and if I knew where to look I could check it for both of us in about 5 minutes
From the wikipedia entry of the Bedford Level Experiment: At the point chosen for all the experiments the Level was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:27:04 AM
Quote
Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

Quote
From the wikipedia entry of the Bedford Level Experiment: At the point chosen for all the experiments the Level was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Stop quoting and referencing that website.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:28:13 AM
Quote
Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

Even nearly stationary water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity. Which part about that do you not understand?

Proof? Scientific reference? Nope and nope. We've given clear examples that show that you're wrong, TomB. No one is believing you any more. I'm resolved to counter every single post of yours to ensure that no one new is fooled for a moment. You might as well troll somewhere else. You're done here, ogre.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:30:28 AM
Quote
Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:34:25 AM
Quote
That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?

At least I reference actual publications and books to back up my claims. All you can seem to reference is user made Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to look into Christine Garwood's credentials and history. She is not a Flat Earther. There is no motive for her to lie to us. Indeed, she supports a spherical earth in her work.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:35:48 AM
...

Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Stop quoting and referencing that website.
Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:43:47 AM
Quote
Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 04, 2007, 06:45:01 AM
Quote
That's your proof. Goodness,, you don't have much to support you now! How about the name of the granting university?

At least I reference an actual publication and book to back up my claims. All you can seem to reference is user made Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to look into Christine Garwood's credentials and history. She is not a Flat Earther. There is no motive for her to lie to us. Indeed, she supports a spherical earth in her work.
fixed
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:47:57 AM
Quote
Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?
I suggest you demonstrate your claim. The checks and balances in Wikipedia have already defeated more-talented evil-doers than you, TomB. Get used to it. The world has passed you by.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:57:13 AM
Quote
Oh and stop calling him "Dr." (To those you don't know, Rowbotham did not hold an advanced degree and that no one else uses the honorific with his name except the deluded TomB.).

Pick up a copy of the book "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by historian Christine Garwood. She confirms that Rowbotham did indeed hold an advanced degree. He was laid to rest as "Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.D., Ph.D." in the Crystal Palace Cemetery.

Cemetery records are notoriously inaccurate and often inflated. Please reference: Genealogy Research (http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/Ancillary/OnE/ReliabilityDeathCertTombstone.shtml). Let's have the name of the university that granted his Ph. D.. I'm sure from there we can confirm or deny your claim. Otherwise, the burden of proof remains squarely with you. You could of course bolster your cause with a reference to someone else who has published the honorific with his name. I couldn't find one with 15 minutes of effort.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 04, 2007, 07:00:17 AM
I feel we've gone off-topic here, the original point was that TB often contradicts established FE canon, then othertimes contradicts himself
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 08:00:04 AM
Yeah you guys totally ruined my thread. I was trying to establish some kind of definite idea of FET vs. TFET.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Gin, all that is correct. I am prepared to justify each of my claims with references.

That was all I needed to know. The rest of this stuff belongs somewhere else.

If a moderator wants to come and move (not delete) most of this thread to another one about the Bedford level experiment (which I suggest belongs in D&D not Q&C) that would be very good. If there are any FEers out there who want to answer the OP just to clear things up, that would be great.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2007, 09:12:24 AM
Quote
Wrong again, TomB. Do you check your facts at all? Please reference: BBC News

You really are a fool, Gulliver. I could change the article to say "The Old Bedford Canal is completely stationary" at any point in time. I could create a macroscript to change it to say those words every day if it was changed back. The very ability to do that proves conclusively that Wikipedia is not a valid source. There is no fact proofing. There is no peer review before publication. If that's all the proof you have then you truly are as pathetic as the petty and childish insults you throw around.

If I create an article which says that the earth is in the shape of a donut, will that prove that the earth takes the shape of a donut?

So their was this article here in the Denver post not the longest ago.  They hired 3 professionals in certain fields and had them go look at a topic on wiki.  All the topics they looked at were correct.


In other news I wikied Earth Not A globe 2007 edition and nothing came up. 
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 11:06:11 AM
That's not proof

Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months. I'm pretty sure that he would know whether it flowed or not.

You keep calling him "Dr" yet Dogplatter says Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate in any field.  Please enlighten me as to why you refer to him as "Dr".
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 11:49:23 AM
Quote from: TheEngineer
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 11:51:23 AM
Quote
You keep calling him "Dr" yet Dogplatter says Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate in any field.  Please enlighten me as to why you refer to him as "Dr".

Rowbotham held a medical degree. Read "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" for a biography. I would reprint the material here in full, but that would be an insult to Ms. Christine Garwood.

Quote
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.

Care to contradict me on any of my claims? Everything I've said has been endorsed by Dr. Rowbotham himself. He's the founder of the Flat Earth Society, if you haden't noticed.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 11:52:06 AM
Once again, too bad this isn't his website.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 11:52:19 AM
Quote
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop.  In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.

Care to contradict me on any of my claims? Everything I've said has been endorsed by Dr. Rowbotham himself. He's the founder of the Flat Earth Society, if you haden't noticed.

This post is just too ironic.  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 11:52:54 AM
It's in my sig. Engy Baby won QOTW.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 11:53:46 AM
Quote
Once again, too bad this isn't his website.

Then why does your FAQ instruct the reader to read Earth Not a Globe?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 12:00:54 PM
Because, Daniel, founder of this site, felt the need to use it to clarify some frequently asked questions.  Rowbotham died long before the internet was invented.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 12:09:43 PM
Quote
Because, Daniel, founder of this site, felt the need to use it to clarify some frequently asked questions.  Rowbotham died long before the internet was invented.

Yes, who would have guessed that Robotham died before the internet was invented. Thanks for the striking revelation, gumshoe.

Since Daniel decided to clarify some of the Frequently Asked Questions by pointing at Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, then it is obvious to everyone on this forum that this is Rowbotham's website.

Unless you are able to provide explanations better than Dr. Rowbotham, Flat Earth Theory will never be yours to take.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 12:11:22 PM
Since Daniel decided to clarify some of the Frequently Asked Questions by pointing at Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, then it is obvious to everyone on this forum that this is Rowbotham's website.

 ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 12:11:51 PM
Daniel also decided to use some of my ideas to clarify some FAQs, so does that make this website mine?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 04, 2007, 12:12:47 PM
Gumshoe?
(http://www.broeswillems.nl/php/images/NES-Gumshoe.jpg)

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 12:15:30 PM
Daniel also decided to use some of my ideas to clarify some FAQs, so does that make this website mine?

Yes its your website

What the hell is gumshoe?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 04, 2007, 12:16:02 PM
It's obviously an imposter who doesn't know that Tom always says dumbshoe.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 12:16:09 PM
What the hell is gumshoe?
A detective.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 12:16:58 PM
What the hell is gumshoe?
A detective.

Oh right. Tom is being odd today. Well odder..
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 12:17:15 PM
Quote
Daniel also decided to use some of my ideas to clarify some FAQs, so does that make this website mine?

Have you provided mathematical evidence for the height of the sun or observational references for what exists beyond the Ice Wall? If not, then you are under no presumption to contradict Rowbotham. He triangulates the sun to 700 miles above the sea level of the earth using tired and true astronomical calculations. Rowbotham tells us what is beyond the ice wall by simply stating that it is unknown how far the ice extends.

The half thought out model described in your FAQ is just messy and insufficient. Everyone can agree on that. The Flat Earth Theory will always be considered "Rowbotham's theory" just as evolution will always be considered "Darwin's theory."
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 12:18:56 PM
Rowbotham tells us what is beyond the ice wall by simpley stating that it is unknown how far the ice extends.
Quoted for irony.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 12:23:34 PM
Yeah, I'm having trouble figuring out how that is "observational evidence"...  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 12:24:13 PM
He triangulates the sun to 700 miles above the sea level of the earth using tired and true astronomical calculations.

Those poor tired astronomical calculations, someone should give them a few days off for rest.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 12:32:01 PM
Just as I expected. Instead of providing content to your posts you children will just wander off into yourselves, thinking you "one upped" the other person in a debate. The truth is that Daniel links Earth Not a Globe in the FAQ for the reader as a reference. Therefore Daniel considers the book Earth Not a Globe as valid.

Not only are you contradicting Dr. Rowbotham, but you are contradicting the site admin Daniel as well. If you choose to personally deny Earth Not a Globe, feel free. But under no pretense is it not part of "Flat Earth Theory." That's probably the most ignorant contradiction I've ever heard.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
I'm gonna ask Daniel himself.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 12:44:30 PM
Quote
Daniel also decided to use some of my ideas to clarify some FAQs, so does that make this website mine?
...[Rowbotham] triangulates the sun to 700 miles above the sea level of the earth using tired and true astronomical calculations. Rowbotham tells us what is beyond the ice wall by simply stating that it is unknown how far the ice extends.
TomB lies here folks. Rowbotham's method of triangulations is unfounded. He did not consider error. He might as well have pulled the number out of thin air. His calculations did not consider the difference in altitude between the two observers. He does not tell us how the angles were measured or  to what degree of accuracy. The difference between the two observers (64-61) is only three degrees. If the margin were only plus or minus 1.5 degrees then the results are not different, and the Sun could be at any distance. (I suggest that TomB try to measure the angle to the bottom edge of the midday Sun and tell us how accurate he can be.)

Please reject this experiment as fundamentally flawed. Let's use the community telescope to get an accurate reading!

Please reference Chapter V (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm).
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 12:47:56 PM
Quote
Daniel also decided to use some of my ideas to clarify some FAQs, so does that make this website mine?

Have you provided mathematical evidence for the height of the sun or observational references for what exists beyond the Ice Wall? If not, then you are under no presumption to contradict Rowbotham. He triangulates the sun to 700 miles above the sea level of the earth using tired and true astronomical calculations. Rowbotham tells us what is beyond the ice wall by simply stating that it is unknown how far the ice extends.

If we are merely trying to "one-up" you, please explain this apparent contradiction (highlighted in bold) in what you stated.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 12:50:44 PM
Just as I expected. Instead of providing content to your posts you children will just wander off into yourselves, thinking you "one upped" the other person in a debate. The truth is that Daniel links Earth Not a Globe in the FAQ for the reader as a reference. Therefore Daniel considers the book Earth Not a Globe as valid.

Not only are you contradicting Dr. Rowbotham, but you are contradicting the site admin Daniel as well. If you choose to personally deny Earth Not a Globe, feel free. But under no pretense is it not part of "Flat Earth Theory." That's probably the most ignorant contradiction I've ever heard.
TomB, in western civilization, the only text that we're not allowed to disagree with, to improve upon, or to dismiss portions of, is the Bible, and then only if you accept the dogma. Darwin's On the Origin of Species gave evolution a boost, but no one is afraid to reject its errors or to improve upon its inferences. I suggest that you stop insisting that every one answer of their master's whistle and start thinking for yourself.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 12:57:39 PM
Quote
Darwin's On the Origin of Species gave evolution a boost, but no one is afraid to reject its errors or to improve upon its inferences.

The difference is, TheEngineer doesn't improve on Rowbotham's model at all. He simply states that it is no longer valid without giving alternatives or a reason for why it is no longer valid to FET. I will suggest that he crawl back into his hole until he has something constructive or meaningful to say.

Quote
If we are merely trying to "one-up" you, please explain this apparent contradiction (highlighted in bold) in what you stated.

Rowbotam is unclear what exists beyond the edge of the Ice Wall. His assumption is that is stretches on perpetually. From the edge of the Ice Wall, for as far as the eye and telescope can see, the tundra of ice and snow stretches seemingly forever.

TheEngineer, however, changes Flat Earth Theory by unjustifiably stating in the FAQ that there is an edge just beyond the Ice Wall.

If TheEngineer thinks that he can provide a more comprehensive model than Rowbotham, then why doesn't he ever show us this model? Why does he continue to link to Rowbotham? It really is unnecessary for him to come in here with his twaddle claiming that Earth Not a Globe is no longer valid. It's ignorant of him to think that there is an edge to the earth without telling us how the atmosphere stays upon the earth's surface.

It's a simple tactic he uses to avoid having to answer certain questions about Flat Earth Theory, nothing more. Engineer avoids questions by stating "that's not my model, that's Tom's/Robotham's model!" He will then ignore a topic and repeat the same thing next week verbatim. It really is transparent of him.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 01:08:05 PM
Quote
Rowbotam is unclear what exists beyond the edge of the Ice Wall. His assumption is that is stretches on perpetually. From the edge of the Ice Wall, for as far as the eye and telescope can see, the tundra of ice and snow stretches seemingly forever.

So you lied, and what he said about the ice wall wasn't based on observation at all.

Let's not make this about TheEngineer.  This is about Rowbotham.  If he was just assuming that there is no end to the icy tundra that lies beyond the ice wall, how is his assertion more reputable than TheEngineer's?  ???
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 01:15:35 PM
Quote
how is his assertion more reputable than TheEngineer's?

For the last one hundred and fifty years Flat Earth proponents have always assumed an infinite earth.  That's how the atmosphere stays on in Earth Not a Globe. That's how the atmosphere stays on in the book "Zetetic Cosmology," in the book "The Flat Earth and her moulder," in the book "The Terrestrial Plane," in the book "Terra Firma," in the book "The Persistently Flat Earth," and in the book "The Earth: A Plane."

If TheEngineer would like to add a hypothetical edge just beyond the Ice Wall, I have no objection to it. He will just need to tell us how the atmosphere stays upon the surface of the earth in this new hypothetical model. He should also reference some observational evidence if this new edge is to be located just beyond the Ice Wall. Afterwards we can debate its validity and veracity.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 01:21:16 PM
Boy, it's starting to sound like the tenets of FET are based on a foundation of unproven dogma!  :o
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 01:25:12 PM
Quote
Boy, it's starting to sound like the tenets of FET are based on a foundation of unproven dogma!

Each of the Flat Earth authors, and most FE proponents, have conducted experiments proving the earth a plane. The only remaining question is the structure and makeup of this new universe. If you continue to doubt the original work of Samuel Birley Rowbotham, you are free to reproduce his experiments for yourself.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 01:35:56 PM
Quote
Boy, it's starting to sound like the tenets of FET are based on a foundation of unproven dogma!

Each of the Flat Earth authors have conducted experiments proving the earth a plane. The only remaining question is the structure and makeup of this new universe. If you continue to doubt the original work of Samuel Birley Rowbotham, you are free to reproduce his experiments yourself. I have.
TomB, we've already caught you in that lie. You have not done all of his experiments by your own admission.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 01:37:51 PM
He edited too late :D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 01:40:41 PM
I'm starting to doubt his observations, only because after 150 years so many damn questions are unanswered, and there are so many inconsistencies that seem to work just fine with a RE.

Rowbotham was a hypocrite.  Rallying against the dogma of a round earth, then basing 75% of his own work on baseless conjecture and often superstition.  He was a hypocrite and anybody putting all his faith in that book, or claiming to put all his faith in that book, is a hypocrite too.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Tom.  You've been shown all the reasons why Rowbotham cannot possibly be correct, and instead of trying to give a reasonable rebuttal, you blindly quote dogma, ignorantly saying "Read the book".  Dogma.  That's all "Earth Not a Globe" is, and that's all "Dr" Rowbotham was good for.  This is proven by you time and time again when you tell people to read the book; you can't back what he says up with any other source (except the other dogmatic, Christian fundamentalist FEers who claimed to have conducted their own experiments proving him right).  This lack of corroboration is the reason why FET is taken as a joke.

The difference between you and TheEngineer is that rather than copy pasting the same ridiculous shit over and over again, he actually tries to come up with reasonable explanations for the bullshit Rowbotham obviously got wrong.

Whether you can trust Rowbotham's experiments or not, everything he did beyond "proving" the earth to be flat was not based on experiment.  It's based on conjecture.  It's silly dogma, all of it, and you look like a fool for constantly backing it up.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 01:56:35 PM
Quote
Whether you can trust Rowbotham's experiments or not, everything he did beyond "proving" the earth to be flat was not based on experiment.  It's based on conjecture.

Have you even read through Earth Not a Globe? If you had then you would know that Rowbotham does not simply "make things up" from his imaginations, but sincerely looks into the issue. Rowbotham gives us a plethora of quotations and references which support each of his suppositions.

For example, Rowbotham predicts a sea of magma below us based on evidence and references gathered from various coal mines:



Dr. Rowbotham provides hundreds of literature references, hundreds of quotes. Under no pretense is any of his work considered "conjecture." There is direct observational evidence which is used to back up each and every one of his claims. If there is doubt, the reader is encouraged to verify the numerous references listed in his index.

Earth Not a Globe cross-references scientific publications, gives quotes from leading scientists of the day, and creates a strong foundation for the true form and magnitude of the earth.

Quote
The difference between you and TheEngineer is that rather than copy pasting the same ridiculous shit over and over again, he actually tries to come up with reasonable explanations for the bullshit Rowbotham obviously got wrong.

What "reasonable explanations" has TheEngineer given? By adding ridiculous holes to Flat Earth Theory?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 02:07:31 PM
The truth is that Daniel links Earth Not a Globe in the FAQ for the reader as a reference. Therefore Daniel considers the book Earth Not a Globe as valid.
The truth is that Daniel provides my information in the FAQ for the reader as a reference.  Therefore, Daniel considers my information as valid.

Quote
He should also reference some observational evidence if this new edge is to be located just beyond the Ice Wall.
Therefore, you should reference some observational evidence the earth is infinite.

Quote
Each of the Flat Earth authors, and most FE proponents, have conducted experiments proving the earth a plane. The only remaining question is the structure and makeup of this new universe.
But I thought that was not allowed?  Or just not by me?

Quote
Engineer avoids questions by stating "that's not my model, that's Tom's/Robotham's model!" He will then ignore a topic and repeat the same thing next week verbatim. It really is transparent of him.
The blanket of dark matter and photoelectric model is Dogplatter's.  I've made my objections to it.  If people want parts of the model explained, I can't do it, as he is the sole holder of the theory.  I can explain what the photoelectric effect is, but questions pertaining to the model must be directed to him.  Same with your infinite earth theory.  Neither of which models I have ever used to explain anything.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 02:08:22 PM
Wow, this post actually proves what I just said!  Based on evidence from "various coal mines", he conjectured that there is a "sea of magma below us"!   ;D

I really think you need to look up the words "observational" and "experimental", Tom.  Quoting others for reference does not equal experimental or observational evidence.  All he's doing is tailoring what others have said (and sometimes the sources are suspect, like where he claims that the moon makes people sick  :D) to his own vision of a flat earth.

Conjecture and superstition.  Dogma.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 02:20:48 PM
Quote
Wow, this post actually proves what I just said!  Based on evidence from "various coal mines", he conjectured that there is a "sea of magma below us"!

Does the Round Earth model not do the same thing as well? Despite various efforts the Human Race still has yet to breach the earth's mantle. We still have zero knowledge of what is truly down there. A theory of a molten inner core in the Round Earth model is based on as much "conjecture."

Yet, don't you believe in a molten inner core?

Quote
Conjecture and superstition.  Dogma.

The same thing could be said about your beloved "Round Earth" except more so. The vast majority of people on the forum blindly believe in a Round Earth without knowing why they hold such beliefs, or how they could come to justify them. That's why, like Gulliver, they resort to petty frustrated insults.

Quote
The truth is that Daniel provides my information in the FAQ for the reader as a reference.  Therefore, Daniel considers my information as valid.

Your information is not valid if it does not improve upon an existing model. How does your work improve upon Rowbotham's model of the earth?


Quote
Same with your infinite earth theory.  Neither of which models I have ever used to explain anything.

Tell us then, what keeps the atmosphere on your customized hypothetical model? You don't know? Well then, it's not a better model of the Flat Earth. Any child could see that.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 02:26:47 PM
Rowbotham's 'evidence' is at best anecdotal and at worst essentially fabricated (he draws unreasonable conclusions from little information, or from one or two sources).

How the atmosphere is kept in is less of a problem when you can't even make the Sun set.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 02:27:55 PM
Quote
Wow, this post actually proves what I just said!  Based on evidence from "various coal mines", he conjectured that there is a "sea of magma below us"!

Does the Round Earth Model not do the same thing as well?

It sure does.  The difference is, in the RE model, it's based on experimental evidence.

Quote
Quote
Conjecture and superstition.  Dogma.

The same thing could be said about your beloved "Round Earth" except more so. The vast majority of people on the forum blindly believe in a Round Earth without knowing why they hold such beliefs, or how they could justify them.

Once again, it's all based on experimental evidence!  What does Rowbotham have to back his claim?  His own experiment "proving" a round earth was actually disproven less than a decade later.  Or is there a legitimate reason why I should take his word over Wallace's?  Where did "Dr" Rowbotham get his accreditation from again? 

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 02:28:55 PM
Tell us then, what keeps the atmosphere on your customized hypothetical model?
It's called the "Keeps the Atmosphere on the Earth" force.  And it has just as much observational evidence as the infinite earth model.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 02:29:31 PM

Quote
Same with your infinite earth theory.  Neither of which models I have ever used to explain anything.

Tell us then, what keeps the atmosphere on your customized hypothetical model? You don't know? Well then, it's not a better model of the Flat Earth. Any child could see that.
TomB, feel free to set up your own web site with your own theory. Maybe we'll stop by to assist you in dealing with the needed logic. (An infinite Earth produces an infinite number of problem. To start the list: infinite gravity, infinite momentum, infinite exchange of gases held in solution (not enough oxygen to sustain life), etc.) Until then, we'll spend our efforts on FES's theory. Get over it.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 02:30:38 PM
Tell us then, what keeps the atmosphere on your customized hypothetical model?
It's called the "Keeps the Atmosphere on the Earth" force.  And it has just as much observational evidence as the infinite earth model.
Actually, it has more since the atmosphere is a solution, is constant, and has been kept in.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 02:31:06 PM
Note: The RE model uses more than simple temperature variation to envision the Earth's core. We use seismic information (from Earthquakes etc; the waves refract and travel in the ways we would expect of a ROUND liquid core) and the evidence of volcanic eruptions, all of which tie into our Earth structure and formation theories. Isn't it wonderful?

Edit: TheEngineer's keep-it-in-force model is better, as it explains how atmospheric pollution could be possible (and similar in behaviour to our RE models), and doesn't ignore the laws of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 02:44:55 PM
Quote
TomB, feel free to set up your own web site with your own theory.

My theory is the one presented in Earth Not a Globe. The book listed in the FAQ as a valid source.

Quote
It's called the "Keeps the Atmosphere on the Earth" force.  And it has just as much observational evidence as the infinite earth model.

Is that the best you could come up with, Engineer?

It comes off like the incoherent babbling of an unintelligent child. If you cannot provide a better model than Rowbotham's infinite earth then don't even attempt to play your hand. It's rather pathetic, really. Instead of prancing around with your fruitless slang, perhaps you should bide your time creating a coherent model of the cosmos. If you say Rowbotham was wrong; have some justification for it. Create something better. Otherwise, you're just a simple idiot.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 02:45:43 PM
I'm really going to miss you Tom and your delightful posts...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 02:46:34 PM
TheEngineers model IS and improvement on Rowbotham's. Just like the UA, his keep-it-in force is unexplained. However, his explanation avoid all the problems of an infinite Earth with physics-defying properties.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheEngineer on June 04, 2007, 02:46:56 PM
If you cannot provide a better model than Rowbotham's infinite earth then don't even attempt to play your hand.
My model is infinitely better, as it requires nothing to be infinite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 04, 2007, 02:47:02 PM
Tom should do his own FES podcasts.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 02:56:04 PM
Quote
TomB, feel free to set up your own web site with your own theory.

My theory is the one presented in Earth Not a Globe. The book listed in the FAQ as a valid source.

Quote
It's called the "Keeps the Atmosphere on the Earth" force.  And it has just as much observational evidence as the infinite earth model.

Is that the best you could come up with, Engineer?

It comes off like the incoherent babbling of an unintelligent child. If you cannot provide a better model than Rowbotham's infinite earth then don't even attempt to play your hand. It's rather pathetic, really. Instead of prancing around with your fruitless slang, perhaps you should bide your time creating a coherent model of the cosmos. If you say Rowbotham was wrong; have some justification for it. Create something better. Otherwise, you're just a simple idiot.

Are you serious??  There's justification all over this forum!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 03:01:50 PM
Quote
TomB, feel free to set up your own web site with your own theory.

My theory is the one presented in Earth Not a Globe. The book listed in the FAQ as a valid source.

Quote
It's called the "Keeps the Atmosphere on the Earth" force.  And it has just as much observational evidence as the infinite earth model.

Is that the best you could come up with, Engineer?

It comes off like the incoherent babbling of an unintelligent child. If you cannot provide a better model than Rowbotham's infinite earth then don't even attempt to play your hand. It's rather pathetic, really. Instead of prancing around with your fruitless slang, perhaps you should bide your time creating a coherent model of the cosmos. If you say Rowbotham was wrong; have some justification for it. Create something better. Otherwise, you're just a simple idiot.
I like how TomB has managed to switch the topic from his wild statements to his dogma. He can't lose to logic when faith is involved.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 03:05:41 PM
Quote
TheEngineers model IS and improvement on Rowbotham's. Just like the UA, his keep-it-in force is unexplained. However, his explanation avoid all the problems of an infinite Earth with physics-defying properties.

Physics will need to be revised with whatever is chosen to keep the atmosphere in. This "keep-it-in" force will need to be explained if TheEngineer's model wishes to be coherent.

Rowbotham looked out at the icy tundra of Antarctica and stated simply "I don't know what's out there on those apparently endless plains" and left it at that. Dr. Rowbotham does not, in any sense of the word, give a definite answer in his book. Knowing such things will forever be beyond human knowledge, asserts Rowbotham. This is a sufficient, genuine answer. We take appearances for what they are, not make up giant 50,000 foot Ice Walls, celestial domes, or edges of the earth.

In stark contrast, TheEngineer's FAQ states that there is an edge right beyond the Ice Wall. If you ask Engineer what will happen if you fly south over the Ice Wall he'll give the ridiculous answer of "you'll fly off the edge."
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 04, 2007, 03:08:08 PM
Well there's either an edge or a physics-defying infinite plane. So which do you prefer Tom?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 03:11:27 PM
Quote
This is a sufficient, genuine answer

No true science is satisfied with 'forever unknowable by man' in this way. Some things may be uncertain, or variable within certain bounds, but Rowbotham's theory is outright incomplete.

Plus he cannot explain accurately how the sun sets.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 03:43:21 PM
Quote
Well there's either an edge or a physics-defying infinite plane. So which do you prefer Tom?

Beyond the Ice Wall exists either an infinite plane, a celestial dome, an edge to the earth, or a 50,000 foot Ice Wall. Only one of those seem to agree with our limited observations thus far.

Quote
No true science is satisfied with 'forever unknowable by man' in this way.

Astronomy, Geology, Physics, and Biology certainly seem satisfied with such statements. There are unknowables all the time in science. After all, the universe in the Round Earth model is assumed to be infinite in extent. Ask an Astronomer what exists beyond our Hubble sphere of vision and he will say "it is unknown how far the universe extends beyond that point."

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 03:47:13 PM
After all, the universe in the Round Earth model is assumed to be infinite in extent.

It absolutely is not.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 03:49:00 PM
Quote
It absolutely is not.

Ever hear of Cosmic Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation)?



There are alternative hypothetical models to Cosmic Inflation, of course. But Cosmic Inflation is part of the current agreed upon Big Bang Model.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 03:55:28 PM
Anything that starts at a finite size remains a finite size.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 03:56:00 PM
Quote
Anything that starts at a finite size remains a finite size.

Not your Big Bang!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 03:56:21 PM
Hey, let's read the next few paragraphs in the same article!

Quote
Initial conditions
Some physicists have tried to avoid this problem by proposing models for an eternally inflating universe with no origin.[57][58][59][60] These models propose a special "initial" hypersurface when the universe has some minimum size and from which time begins.

Other proposals attempt to describe the ex nihilo creation of the universe quantum cosmology and the following inflation. Vilenkin put forth one such scenario.[51] Hartle and Hawking proposed the no-boundary proposal for the initial creation of the universe in which inflation comes about naturally.[61]

Alan Guth has described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[62] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background. Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) both the first law of thermodynamics or energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics or the arrow of time problem. However, while there is consensus that this solves the initial conditions problem, some have disputed this, as it is much more likely that the universe came about by a quantum fluctuation. Donald Page was an outspoken critic of inflation because of this anomaly. [63] He stressed that the thermodynamic arrow of time necessitates low entropy initial conditions, which would be highly unlikely. According to them, rather than solving this problem, the inflation theory further aggravates it – the reheating at the end of the inflation era increases entropy, making it necessary for the initial state of the Universe to be even more orderly than in other Big Bang theories with no inflation phase.

Hawking and Page later found ambiguous results when they attempted to compute the probability of inflation in the Hartle-Hawking initial state.[64] Other authors have argued that, since inflation is eternal, the probability doesn't matter as long as it is not precisely zero: once it starts, inflation perpetuates itself and quickly dominates the universe.[citation needed] However, Albrecht and Lorenzo Sorbo have argued that the probability of an inflationary cosmos, consistent with today's observations, emerging by a random fluctuation from some pre-existent state, compared with a non-inflationary cosmos overwhelmingly favours the inflationary scenario, simply because the "seed" amount of non-gravitational energy required for the inflationary cosmos is so much less than any required for a non-inflationary alternative, which outweighs any entropic considerations.[65]

Another problem that has occasionally been mentioned is the trans-Planckian problem or trans-Planckian effects.[66] Since the energy scale of inflation and the Planck scale are relatively close, some of the quantum fluctuations which have made up the structure in our universe were smaller than the Planck length before inflation. Therefore, there ought to be corrections from Planck-scale physics, in particular the unknown quantum theory of gravity. There has been some disagreement about the magnitude of this effect: about whether it is just on the threshold of detectability or completely undetectable.[citation needed]


[edit] Reheating
The end of inflation is called reheating or thermalization because the large potential energy decays into particles and fills the universe with radiation. Because the nature of the inflaton is not known, this process is still poorly understood, although it is believed to take place through a parametric resonance.[67][68]


[edit] Non-eternal inflation
Another kind of inflation, called hybrid inflation, is an extension of new inflation. It introduces additional scalar fields, so that while one of the scalar fields is responsible for normal slow roll inflation, another triggers the end of inflation: when inflation has continued for sufficiently long, it becomes favorable to the second field to decay into a much lower energy state.[69] Unlike most other models of inflation, many versions of hybrid inflation are not eternal. [70] [71]

In hybrid inflation, one of the scalar fields is responsible for most of the energy density (thus determining the rate of expansion), while the other is responsible for the slow roll (thus determining the period of inflation and its termination). Thus fluctuations in the former inflaton would not affect inflation termination, while fluctuations in the latter would not affect the rate of expansion. Therefore hybrid inflation is not eternal. When the second (slow-rolling) inflaton reaches at the bottom of its potential, it changes the location of the minimum of the first inflaton's potential, which leads to a fast roll of the this inflaton down its potential, leading to termination of inflation.

So once again, the Round Earth model of the universe is absolutely not "assumed to be infinite to some extent".

EDIT: I know that was a lot to read so I emboldened the important part.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 03:57:06 PM
Tom Bishop's understanding of RE theory is very poor, let us enlighten him.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 03:58:59 PM
Quote
So once again, the Round Earth model of the universe is absolutely not "assumed to be infinite to some extent".

Those are just "other models" like I said. The current mainstream Big Bang assumes that Cosmic Inflation occured eternally, boundless in reach and extent. Since it invokes the expansion of space, Cosmic Inflation occurred faster than the speed of light, filling the infinite void.

Quote
Tom Bishop's understanding of RE theory is very poor, let us enlighten him.

Actually, your understanding of your own theory is poor. You didn't even know that the universe was thought to be infinite amongst most Physicists and Astronomers!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:01:17 PM
Quote
It absolutely is not.

Ever hear of Cosmic Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation)?

    "Cosmic inflation seems to be eternal the way it is theorised. Although new inflation is classically rolling down the potential, quantum fluctuations can sometimes bring it back up to previous levels. These regions in which the inflaton fluctuates upwards expand much faster than regions in which the inflaton has a lower potential energy, and tend to dominate in terms of physical volume. This steady state, which first developed by Vilenkin,[51] is called "eternal inflation". It has been shown that any inflationary theory with an unbounded potential is eternal.[52]
Ever hear of checking your cut-and-paste text that it actually deals with the issue? Infinite densities do not mean infinite volume.

Oh, and aren't you the hypocrite, citing Wikipedia after today's tirade about it! For shame!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 04:03:27 PM
Do you see how this whole discussion demonstrates how dogmatic Flat Earth Theory really is?  Real science is constantly changed and tweaked and improved upon.  You yourself suggest that to do this with Rowbotham's book is akin to heresy!  Careful, Tom, you claim to be an atheist, but I believe you might just worship "Dr" Rowbotham since you hang off every word he says as if you are Moses and he is God!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
... [T]he universe was thought to be infinite amongst most Physicists and Astronomers!
Patently false, like much of what TomB says!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:19:10 PM
Quote
Ever hear of checking your cut-and-paste text that it actually deals with the issue? Infinite densities do not mean infinite volume.

Cosmic Inflation is the expansion of space by definition. The quote I provided has nothing to do with the density of the universe, but the eternal expansion of the universe moments after the Big Bang. You're not even attempting to make sense, Gulliver.

Quote
Oh, and aren't you the hypocrite, citing Wikipedia after today's tirade about it! For shame!

You are welcome to dismiss your own theory if you wish. However, if you'd like alternate quotes and sources, I am more than willing to provide them:

Here is a paper on the subject by Alan H. Guth (http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html), the man who came up with the mainstream idea of Cosmic Inflation:


http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0002156
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 04:20:34 PM
Sounds like he's admitting there are problems with the theory...  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:22:04 PM
Tom: Big Bang theory holds that the universe began at a point and expanded. There was no infinite void to expand into because space was created in the big bang. You can easily deduce from this that, at whatever speed the universe expanded, it has always been and will always be finite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:22:34 PM
Quote
Tom: Big Bang theory holds that the universe began at a point and expanded. There was no infinite void to expand into because space was created in the big bang. You can easily deduce from this that, at whatever speed the universe expanded, it has always been and will always be finite.

Then why are these physicists saying that the universe is infinite? Even Hawking agrees with an infinite universe. Are you trying to say that you're smarter than these guys?

Quote
Sounds like he's admitting there are problems with the theory...

Perhaps so. But do you believe in the mainstream version of the Big Bang? If so, then you believe his theory of Cosmic Inflation. Therefore, you believe that the universe is infinite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:24:45 PM
Cite me a source that states that the current theory is of an infinite universe.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:28:49 PM
Quote
Cite me a source that states that the current theory is of an infinite universe.

Look up "Big Bang" in any encyclopedia. It will mention Cosmic Inflation.

Then go back to this thread and scroll up to the article where its inventor, an MIT physics professor (http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html), describes the details of the theory.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:30:49 PM
Cosmic inflation does not demand that the universe be infinite. Cosmic inflation holds that a very very small universe expanded very rapidly for a short time (within the first picosecond) of the big bang. Nowhere does it say it is infinite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 04:32:16 PM
Perhaps so. But do you believe in the mainstream version of the Big Bang? If so, then you believe his theory of Cosmic Inflation. Therefore, you believe that the universe is infinite.

Honestly, I don't believe it as dogmatically as you believe Rowbotham's theories about a flat earth.  And neither do most scientists, for that matter.  The minute we actually think we have everything figured out is the minute scientific inquiry grinds to a screeching halt.

How much has Flat Earth Theory changed in your model in the past 150 years, compared to how much Big Bang Theory has changed in the 97 years since the principles were first introduced?

See what I mean by dogma?  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:32:48 PM
Cosmic inflation does not demand that the universe be infinite. Cosmic inflation holds that a very very small universe expanded very rapidly for a short time (within the first picosecond) of the big bang. Nowhere does it say it is infinite.

Alan H. Guth (http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html) says it expands forever. I've given sufficient quotes. Don't you think Alan H. Guth would know about his own inflation theory?

Are you saying that you're smarter than a Harvard Physics Professor?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:33:31 PM
Expanding forever does not make it infinite! If I take a number and double it forever, after how long will it be infinite?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 04:35:17 PM
I love it.  I get what you're saying now, Gin.  He's saying that the universe will always be expanding, not that the universe is infinite in size. 

Tom, you idiot!  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:36:20 PM
Quote
Ever hear of checking your cut-and-paste text that it actually deals with the issue? Infinite densities do not mean infinite volume.
... T[h]e[SIC] quote I provided has nothing to do with the density of the universe, but the eternal expansion of the universe moments after the Big Bang. You're not even attempting to make sense, Gulliver.
Let's look back at the quote in question... "inflation, volume, matter" that means density is involved. Back to the high school physics textbook comment, TomB, you're out of your league.
Quote
Quote
Oh, and aren't you the hypocrite, citing Wikipedia after today's tirade about it! For shame!
You are welcome to dismiss your own theory if you wish. However, if you'd like alternate quotes and sources, I am more than willing to provide them:  ....
Yep! You're a hypocrite!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 04:36:42 PM
Don't call Tom an idiot. He's just a bit slow, that's all.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:38:25 PM
Cosmic inflation does not demand that the universe be infinite. Cosmic inflation holds that a very very small universe expanded very rapidly for a short time (within the first picosecond) of the big bang. Nowhere does it say it is infinite.

Alan H. Guth (http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html) says it expands forever. I've given sufficient quotes. Don't you think Alan H. Guth would know about his own inflation theory?

Are you saying that you're smarter than a Harvard Physics Professor?
Not at all. We're saying that you're mistaken to claim that a forever inflating universe will become infinite. That's covered in high school pre-calculus. Read about limits.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:41:51 PM
Quote
Not at all. We're saying that you're mistaken to claim that a forever inflating universe will become infinite. That's covered in high school pre-calculus. Read about limits.

The universe has already inflated into the infinite void. The universe isn't inflating by Cosmic Inflation anymore. It has already stopped. Read your own theory for god's sake.

Expanding forever does not make it infinite! If I take a number and double it forever, after how long will it be infinite?

It's not expanding anymore. The universe has already expanded forever. That's why there are stars beyond our Hubble sphere of vision. Cosmic Inflation happened and then stopped according to current models. It was a singular event.

Cosmic inflation "isn't still happening." You're thinking of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. They are two different phenomena of different causes and mechanisms. Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration through Dark Matter began roughly 9 billion years ago. That's much later than the birth of the universe. If Cosmic Inflation and Expansion of the Universe were the same phenomenon then we would have given the two the same name.

Oh, and I would like to see sources for your wild claims. I've given sources, why don't you people ever give sources?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:45:07 PM
You cannot expand forever in a finite time. This is the MOST foolish think you have so far said. The Cosmic inflation theory does indeed state that expansion only took place for a small fraction of a second, but also that it did not transition a finite universe into an infinite one.

For the last time Tom, THERE IS NO INFINITE VOID into which the universe expanded. The universe itself contains the very concept of space, and thus there can be nothing 'outside' it.

Edit: All RE sources seem to turn into conspiracy propaganda or unreliable lies (see: UNSW, Wikipedia) when they come into contact with you. We stopped providing sources when you made it clear that any that support us are invalid. I will find some if you like, but I doubt it will help.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:46:55 PM
Quote
Not at all. We're saying that you're mistaken to claim that a forever inflating universe will become infinite. That's covered in high school pre-calculus. Read about limits.

The universe has already inflated into the infinite void. The universe isn't inflating by Cosmic Inflation anymore. It has already stopped. Read your own theory for god's sake.
...
Less than 10 minutes ago, you also said: "Alan H. Guth says it expands forever."

You can't even keep your story straight for 10 minutes!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:47:49 PM
Quote
You cannot expand forever in a finite time. This is the MOST foolish think you have so far said. The Cosmic inflation theory does indeed state that expansion only took place for a small fraction of a second, but also that it did not transition a finite universe into an infinite one.

Time is not quantized. It is perfectly feasible for the universe to expand infinitely in a finite amount of time. If you are going to claim the absurd notion that time is quantized, then I would like to see your source.

Quote
For the last time Tom, THERE IS NO INFINITE VOID into which the universe expanded. The universe itself contains the very concept of space, and thus there can be nothing 'outside' it.

The universe created the infinite void, of course. But it expanded into itself none the less.

Quote
Less than 10 minutes ago, you also said: "Alan H. Guth says it expands forever."

Forever as in volume and distance, not time.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 04:48:48 PM
Whoa now you guys have completely lost me
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:50:17 PM
Now YOU are distorting your source text Tom. "Eternally" means over infinite time. I am not saying time is quantized (I'm not saying it isn't) but nowhere does cosmic inflation state that it expands from finite to infinite. You have yet to back this claim up (your previous quotation says nothing about it).
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 04:52:13 PM
(what does time being quantized mean?)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:52:37 PM
Quote
You cannot expand forever in a finite time. This is the MOST foolish think you have so far said. The Cosmic inflation theory does indeed state that expansion only took place for a small fraction of a second, but also that it did not transition a finite universe into an infinite one.

Time is not quantized. It is perfectly feasible for the universe to expand infinitely in a finite time. If you are going to claim the absurd notion that time is quantized, then I would like to see your source.

BUZZ!! Time is quantized, just like the other three dimensions. Please see Expert Answer (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae258.cfm).
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 04:53:44 PM
It means that you can't chop it up forever. Quantized means 'made into little pieces' (a very amateurish definition I'm sure). It's like the universe had little pixels. You couldn't have half a pixel of time, only one or none. It makes the universe kind of grainy.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 04:55:02 PM
It means that you can't chop it up forever. Quantized means 'made into little pieces' (a very amateurish definition I'm sure). It's like the universe had little pixels. You couldn't have half a pixel of time, only one or none. It makes the universe kind of grainy.

Thanks Ginfag
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 04:56:32 PM
(what does time being quantized mean?)
It means that there exists a tiniest amount of time, some measure of time that we can't divide. If the quanta were the size of seconds that there would a noticeable "lumpiness" to time. The ticking of a clock, for example, would become a hum.

BTW, this debate is entirely irrelevant. TomB has just started lying about something else to avoid admitting that he's wrong in the first place, standard troll behavior.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 04:56:59 PM
Quote
BUZZ!! Time is quantized, just like the other three dimensions. Please see Expert Answer (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae258.cfm)

Another boldfaced lie, Gulliver. If you were a physics professor as you claimed then you would know that Quantized Time went out of fashion in the 40's.

Your reference even says so:


Here's a better source: http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1234

There is no quantized unit of time. Max Plank himself says that only space is quantized.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 04:59:16 PM
(what does time being quantized mean?)
It means that there exists a tiniest amount of time, some measure of time that we can't divide. If the quanta were the size of seconds that there would a noticeable "lumpiness" to time. The ticking of a clock, for example, would become a hum.

BTW, this debate is entirely irrelevant. TomB has just started lying about something else to avoid admitting that he's wrong in the first place, standard troll behavior.

Thanks as well Gully. Sometimes I need some stuff explained to me, I don't do physics y'see.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 05:01:16 PM
Quote
BUZZ!! Time is quantized, just like the other three dimensions. Please see Expert Answer (http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae258.cfm)

Another boldfaced lie, Gulliver. If you were a physics professor as you claimed then you would know that Quantized Time went out of fashion in the 40's.

Your reference even says so:

"However, no-one has yet been able to come up with a consistent theory of space, time, fields and matter which shows exactly how time is quantized."

Here's a better source: http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1234

There is no quantized unit of time. Max Plank himself says that only space is quantized.
From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:03:10 PM
Quote
From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 05:04:40 PM
It is not particularly relevant whether or not time is quantized. Cosmic inflation says the universe did not undergo a finite -> infinite transition. End of story.

Edit: Knowing that time is quantized does not imply that we know how it is quantized. Just because you know something is made of little blocks doesn't mean you know what the blocks are or how big they are.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 05:06:14 PM
Why don't you just make up a name for it? Call it Brian. Or Gayer.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:09:02 PM
Quote
It is not particularly relevant whether or not time is quantized. Cosmic inflation says the universe did not undergo a finite -> infinite transition. End of story.

It is absolutely relevant. Current Cosmological Inflation states that the universe expanded eternally through space in a limited amount of time and then stopped. Your rebuttal was that "it is impossible to grow infinitely large in a finite amount of time." You are suggesting that time is quantized.

Yet, aside from Gulliver's lie, a discrete unit of time does not exist.

What is the discrete unit of time called, Gin? After you give me the name we should be able to go into an encyclopedia and confirm that it is indeed the discrete unit of time.

You say "end of story" but you did not even read the Wikipedia article about your own theory. Cosmic Inflation started, then stopped. It filled up space eternally as I provided a source for.

Where are the sources for any of your claims?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 05:10:35 PM
Quote
From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.
Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 05:11:18 PM
Quote from: Wikipedia
The universe expanded by a factor of at least 1026 during inflation

Ref: This is usually quoted as 60 e-folds of expansion, where e60 ≈ 1026. It is equal to the amount of expansion since reheating, which is roughly Einflation/T0, where T0 = 2.7 K is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background today. See, e.g. Kolb and Turner (1998) or Liddle and Lyth (2000).

Yes it is from Wikipedia, but its references are not. There's your reference Tom.

1026 doesn't sound very infinite to me....
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 05:11:44 PM
Time is quantized (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___US218&q=time+is+quantized), Tom.  The google search proves it, right?  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 04, 2007, 05:13:56 PM
Quote
From your reference: "...many scientists take the notion of quantized time for granted..."

If modern physics holds that time is quantized, then you should be able to give me the name of this discrete measurement of time. What is it called Gulliver?

After you give me the name then we should be able to go to any encyclopedia and find an entry which says that it is the discrete unit of time.

This is the simplest way we can find out if modern physics thinks that there is a discrete measurement of time.
Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?

I thought we agreed on calling it Gayer?

Is this another important argument like the "Dr" one?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:16:49 PM
Quote
Okay, "time quanta". Happy now?

That's hilarious, Gulliver. If we do a Google search we will find that "time quanta" is just a placeholder name for a future undiscovered discrete unit of time hypothesized under some theories which require it.

Quote
Yes it is from Wikipedia, but its references are not. There's your reference Tom.

That quote doesn't even make sense. It does not give a maximum, it only defines a minimum.


That's like saying "The Earth is at least 1,000 atoms big." Completely irrelevant.

Give a proper source, please.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 05:17:45 PM
Didja see my google search??!??
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 05:17:48 PM
Quote
Your rebuttal was that "it is impossible to grow infinitely large in a finite amount of time." You are suggesting that time is quantized.

Not really. You see, for it to become infinite, there would need to be a point at which it stopped being finite. When would this occur exactly? If time is continuous, there still needs to be expansion at an INFINITE rate.

Cosmic inflation says that the universe expanded exponentially. That's a long word I know, but it basically means that it got faster, and the rate it was getting faster got faster as well...etc etc.

The value of y = ex is finite for all finite values of x (time).

Edit: the same (sourced) article states that expansion was exponential.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 05:22:11 PM
Quote
Didja see my google search??!??

Yeah, I did. Your search results say that quantized time is purely hypothetical. There is no value attached. "We don't know what the discrete unit of time is."

Quote
Not really. You see, for it to become infinite, there would need to be a point at which it stopped being finite. When would this occur exactly? If time is continuous, there still needs to be expansion at an INFINITE rate.

The Universe became infinite in the moment of the Big Bang. It was never finite to begin with. All of space-time was contained within the Universe, remember?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 05:23:08 PM
All of space time being contained in the universe does not make it infinite. It is not known if the universe is infinite or not. All I was saying was that if it started out finite, it is still finite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 05:25:09 PM
Quote
Didja see my google search??!??

Yeah, I did. Your search results say that quantized time is purely hypothetical. There is no value attached. "We don't know what the discrete unit of time is."

Well, it kind of contradicts your absolute proposition that there is no quantized unit of time, doesn't it?  I mean, if such a thing is theorized, then apparently it's believed to exist.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 05:27:21 PM
So, to state the current opinion on cosmic inflation:

The universe may or may not be infinite. It may not, however, transition from one state to the other. It has either always been infinite, or has always been finite. This will not change.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2007, 05:29:14 PM
One of the fun things about Tom Bishop is that it's so easy to make him contradict himself!  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 05:34:29 PM
One of the fun things about Tom Bishop is that it's so easy to make him contradict himself!  ;D
Good point!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 06:22:33 PM
Quote
Well, it kind of contradicts your absolute proposition that there is no quantized unit of time, doesn't it?  I mean, if such a thing is theorized, then apparently it's believed to exist.

All sorts of thing are "theorized to exist." I knew that quantized time has been theorized to exist. It's a theory from the turn of the 20th century.

However, since no one has found a discrete unit of time, you may as well be saying "aliens are theorized to exist."

Quote
The universe may or may not be infinite. It may not, however, transition from one state to the other. It has either always been infinite, or has always been finite. This will not change.

That's correct. The universe may or may not be infinite. That's a long ways away from your "the universe is finite. end of story." supposition.

As with much of science, there are always things which will forever be unknowable to mankind.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 06:23:57 PM
Haha 'forever unknowable'. I just disagreed with your assertion that the RE universe was infinite.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 06:49:05 PM
Haha 'forever unknowable'. I just disagreed with your assertion that the RE universe was infinite.
Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 06:53:57 PM
I just want to say that Tom's a great player, he played a good game and I wish him the best of luck for the future. It's always been my dream to win an FES debating match, and it's just...I'm so....


*overcome by emotion*
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2007, 07:05:14 PM
Quote
Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.

What's the matter, Gulliver? You looked like you were on a roll over there proving to us that time was quantized. I looked up that "time quanta" and found this from your beloved Wikipedia:


How entirely odd! With proving to us that time is quantized, you entirely contradict General Relativity and modern Quantum Mechanics in one fell swoop. Your own Wikipedia states that the time quanta is quite unproven and highly disputed. It goes against Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which defines time as a continuous quantity. It seems that your little "theory" goes against all of modern physics.

Yet, you come on these forums and claim that time is quantized!

Do you have any more pictures of Dark Matter or Black Holes for us? I didn't really get a good look at the previous ones you provided on these forums.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 04, 2007, 07:07:59 PM
Yet, you come on here and claim the Earth is flat. I have clearly shown your model to be wrong repeatedly.

This little Tom vs. Gulliver thing is going a bit far don't you think? We weren't really talking about quantized time, and you bringing it up again just distracts attention from your sillyness.

I would leave, but owing to the roundness of the Earth it's too dark to go outside.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 04, 2007, 09:10:35 PM
Quote
Game. Set. Match ---> Gin.

What's the matter, Gulliver? You looked like you were on a roll over there proving to us that time was quantized. I looked up that "time quanta" and found this from your beloved Wikipedia:

    "Time quanta is a hypothetical concept. In the modern quantum theory (the Standard Model of particle physics) and in general relativity time is not quantized."

    "A time quanta is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a theory that proposes that time is not continuous. While time is a continuous quantity in standard quantum mechanics, many physicists have suggested that a discrete model of time might work, especially when considering the combination of quantum mechanics with general relativity to produce a theory of quantum gravity."

How entirely odd! With proving to us that time is quantized, you entirely contradict General Relativity and modern Quantum Mechanics in one fell swoop. Your own Wikipedia states that the time quanta is quite unproven and highly disputed. It goes against Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which defines time as a continuous quantity. It seems that your little "theory" goes against all of modern physics.

Yet, you come on these forums and claim that time is quantized!

Do you have any more pictures of Dark Matter or Black Holes for us? I didn't really get a good look at the previous ones you provided on these forums.
GR treats all things as continuous last I checked. It's a theory of the big. Quantum theory is a theory of the small. They haven't met up yet. There's not much of a conflict between them as they don't predict the same types of outcomes. So you're quite wrong, again.

Of course, I have to point out that your conclusions are not supported by your quote. You really need to review your inferences.

Feel free to come back anytime to make another incorrect, trolling statement. We've all come to expect the worst from you.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 05, 2007, 01:01:23 AM
Bollocks, I can't believe I missed most of this debate... :-\
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 05, 2007, 01:33:25 AM
Lucky man.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2007, 09:20:14 AM
I sure hope Tom asking for pictures of back holes, is not implying that they aren't real. 
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 05, 2007, 09:26:33 AM
It's just his attempt to make Gulliver look silly. Tom is guilty above all others of association fallacy.

"The Greeks thought the Earth was Round, but they also though rotting meat created flies, therefore they are wrong about the shape of the Earth"

"Gulliver made an imprecise statement regarding black holes, so his opinions and assertions on other subjects must be wrong too."

Nothing like a big juicy association fallacy to start your day, with a dash of ad hominem for good measure.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2007, 10:59:05 AM
Nothing like a big juicy association fallacy to start your day, with a dash of ad hominem for good measure.

Tom is the undisputed master of association fallacies, and he's getting better and better at ad hominem each day.

I'm starting to think his real identity may be... Sean Hannity!  Yes, it all makes sense now!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 05, 2007, 11:01:33 AM
Who's Sean Hannity?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2007, 11:02:34 AM
Tom Bishop!

Or maybe he's actually Ann Coulter.

Ha ha, I'm referencing Americans you've never heard of, like you do with Brits here!  :P
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 05, 2007, 11:03:04 AM
What the Jeremy Beadle are you talking about?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2007, 11:05:01 AM
Who???  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 05, 2007, 11:08:38 AM
Tom Bishop!

Or maybe he's actually Ann Coulter.

Ha ha, I'm referencing Americans you've never heard of, like you do with Brits here!  :P

I think you made them up
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 05, 2007, 11:10:19 AM
I say we set Vanessa Feltz onto him.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 05, 2007, 11:11:05 AM
I say we don't spam the serious forums
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2007, 11:11:12 AM

I think you made them up

Never!

They're two well-known conservative pundits.  Look them up if you don't believe me.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 05, 2007, 11:12:34 AM
I say an Admin moves this all to a separate thread, then an FEers or two (not Tom) comes to answer the Op for the good of all!

Please?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Earth is flat consult faq on June 06, 2007, 09:55:45 AM
wow tom bishop asked a 3 year old for sex  :o
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ArmyJonHall on June 06, 2007, 09:23:09 PM
I'm starting to doubt his observations, only because after 150 years so many damn questions are unanswered, and there are so many inconsistencies that seem to work just fine with a RE.

Rowbotham was a hypocrite.  Rallying against the dogma of a round earth, then basing 75% of his own work on baseless conjecture and often superstition.  He was a hypocrite and anybody putting all his faith in that book, or claiming to put all his faith in that book, is a hypocrite too.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Tom.  You've been shown all the reasons why Rowbotham cannot possibly be correct, and instead of trying to give a reasonable rebuttal, you blindly quote dogma, ignorantly saying "Read the book".  Dogma.  That's all "Earth Not a Globe" is, and that's all "Dr" Rowbotham was good for.  This is proven by you time and time again when you tell people to read the book; you can't back what he says up with any other source (except the other dogmatic, Christian fundamentalist FEers who claimed to have conducted their own experiments proving him right).  This lack of corroboration is the reason why FET is taken as a joke.

The difference between you and TheEngineer is that rather than copy pasting the same ridiculous shit over and over again, he actually tries to come up with reasonable explanations for the bullshit Rowbotham obviously got wrong.

Whether you can trust Rowbotham's experiments or not, everything he did beyond "proving" the earth to be flat was not based on experiment.  It's based on conjecture.  It's silly dogma, all of it, and you look like a fool for constantly backing it up.

I'm bringing up this thread again because Tom blatantly ignored it, and for his own good, really needs to read it.

To be completely honest Tom seems to be drawing in on himself more and more. He relies on his own (and Rowbothams-but, seeing as he's dead, we won't count him) theories and thoughts. I can imagine him sitting in his house, slowly becoming more and more paranoid as the world around him gets smaller and smaller.

He's gone from just having the RE'ers ridicule him to having the RE'ers AND the FE'ers ridiculing and ribbing him like a tortured pet in a cage, poking him for their own amusement every now and then when they get bored.

Don't you see whats happening Tom? You're not convincing anyone. You're playing into peoples hands and just making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself the harder you try. You're becoming this era's Pauly Shore.

The best thing for you Tom would be to unplug your internet and go about your life. In time, people will forget you and you may live a few years longer due to your blood pressure not getting up everyday.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 07, 2007, 03:57:47 AM
Er why wouldn't you count someone's theories and thoughts because they're dead?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 07, 2007, 08:28:39 AM
Tom's trolliness is amazing at times. He is very committed or very stupid (probably both) but it's fun to debate anyway...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 07, 2007, 03:18:00 PM
In answer to my own OP, I think given the lack of response we can simply go with TheEngineer's statement on the matter (despite him not being a member of FES):

"The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop"

There, now as Gayer is not here to spam this thread to death, it may be laid to rest...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2007, 05:58:26 PM
Quote
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop

Why wouldn't "Earth Not a Globe" be part of Flat Earth Theory?

Can you provide a better model than Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 07, 2007, 11:50:59 PM
Yup, a Round Earth. Much better model ;)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 09, 2007, 01:13:25 AM
In answer to my own OP, I think given the lack of response we can simply go with TheEngineer's statement on the matter (despite him not being a member of FES):

"The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop"

There, now as Gayer is not here to spam this thread to death, it may be laid to rest...

Oh really? I'm back for a couple of hours til its time to get the train so er spam?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 09, 2007, 08:14:47 AM
Mr. Bishop I have to ask you; have you ever traveled into space? Until you do I'm gonna have to ask you to "Up shut the fuck"
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 09, 2007, 08:19:17 AM
I feel we've gone off-topic here, the original point was that TB often contradicts established FE canon, then othertimes contradicts himself

On a secondary point, everything said about FET or even TFET (or whatever I really don't care about the acronyms) is contradictary to each other therefore I'm gonna have to go with the fact this is a conspiracy. Nothing more nothing less. The Earth is round Tom. You fail.

"JOIN THE FE CULT AND GET A FREE SUPER-DEXLUXE LUNCHABLE!"

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Elcapetan/Steam/img.jpg)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 09, 2007, 08:23:38 AM
Quote
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop

Why wouldn't "Earth Not a Globe" be part of Flat Earth Theory?

Can you provide a better model than Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

www.googleearth.com THERE'S YER DAMN MODEL TOM.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Spherical Earth Society Leader on June 09, 2007, 02:45:20 PM
I know some FEers (Dogplatter especially) have been frustrated by the confusion between Flat Earth Theory (FET) and the version of it proposed by Tom Bishop (hereafter called TFET). Tom has been known to make very outlandish claims regarding the Flat Earth, and I thought I'd post some of them here in Q&C so that Flat Earthers (no REers please, unless you definitely know what you're talking about) can make clear which of Tom Bishop's various statements are not endorsed by the FES as a whole. I thought this might be helpful as it is difficult for newbies (and oldies, on occasion) to differ between FE canon and something Tom has just made up, simply because he is the most frequent FE poster on Flat Earth D&D.

Here goes (Quotations here are used for clarity of structure, but are not verbatim reproductions of Tom's words):

1.
Quote
The Flat Earth does not rotate

Tom has claimed it both ways, so I'm a little confused which is part of FET.

2.
Quote
The Earth is a (potentially?) infinite plane

Does FET hold an infinite Earth, a finite one, or an unknown in this area?

3.
Quote
The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...

4.
Quote
Satellites do exist; they orbit a common barycentre like the Sun, Moon and stars

Tom holds that gravitation by mass exists in FE, but not on Earth. He states satellites are held in space by the gravitational attraction of the various celestial bodies.

5.
Quote
Most photos from space (not the Apollo 17 ones) are real. They are consistent with FE.

While this has gone largely uncontested by REers as yet, it seems a big step away from the conspiracy-oriented ideas of FET.

6.
Quote
Those in low Earth Orbit (including commercial space passengers of the future) will see a curved horizon, consistent with FE.

Similar to above.

7.
Quote
Aircraft flight times in the Southern hemisphere are shortened by 400mph jet streams, or the flights are delayed to compensate.

Also met with incredulity by REers, this doesn't seem like the kind of argument FET would employ.

8.
Quote
The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

The ice wall question is a big confusion spot. I know there may not be FET consensus, but is this TFET statement correct in your eyes?

9.
Quote
The conspiracy does not extend to the RSA, as they do not have experience of higher altitude orbits necessary to observe the difference between FE and RE.

As above with satellites.

There may well be more, but this is all I could think of right now. If anyone would like to add some feel free (as long as they are good/important ones). If Tom feels I have misrepresented him in some way; please correct me. I am confident I can find supporting statements for each one I have listed in the many threads we have discussed them in.

The FAQ does answer some of these, but it's age and brevity make it unclear what parts of the theory have been changed or added to. Tom's additions may or may not be welcome in FET.

I posted this in Q&C because I didn't intend these points to be debated in and of themselves, just that they be distinguished FET from TFET. Thanks for your help.





Please look back at question 8, re-pasted here:

The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

However, now, look back in the FAQ. It clearly states that the Ice Wall is only a MOUNTAIN range, and it only happens to be covered in snow and ice. 150 ft., obviously, is not mountain height, probably not even "hill" height. Funny how Tom Bishop and the FAQ disagree. I'm pretty sure no 2 RE'ers have disagreed (except maybe the mentally retarded or those that are constantly drunk/high etc.)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
Quote
Suure that's proof

What part do you disagree with, that the Old Bedford Canal does not flow or that water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity even while flowing?

The Old Bedford Canal is the same location where Alfred Wallace and John Hampden conducted their tests and trials. Those two scientists found the canal to be a satisfying stretch of water upon which it would be possible to tell whether or not convexity really did or did not exist. There we have two independent sources who found the canal to be a satisfying location for a test.

Perhaps you should either take a trip to Cambridge and see for yourself, or give them the benefit of the doubt.

No, what is disagreed with is how you post text from a book and expect thinking people to assume that is the gospel truth, because a dead man said it, and yet NASA saying something is automatically assumed to be a lie, conspiracy, or some shit take to make us cowed.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 10, 2007, 02:07:35 PM
The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...


WAIT WAIT WAIT, I HAVE IT! I HAVE IT! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!!!

SCORE! I"VE DONE IT!:

Explain why the sun does not burn us if its only 700 miles? If the temperature can be proven by thermal imaging from the ground why does the sun not burn us at 700mi? It would burn us alive due to the temperature proven FROM the ground by non-NASA officials. It is roughly 27,000,000 degrees Farenhiet. Now given that this is a UNDISPUTABLE FACT that the sun is this hot. So under the current situation the sun at 700mi would destroy all life as well as melt any ice wall (or any ice for that matter) clouds would evaporate and ther would be no watter, we would be essentially a scorth peice of black rock with zero atmosphere.

Why this works:

Simple princicple. You can test it at home. Build a fire. Move your hand closer to the flame, eventually it will get burned. Apply this simple common sense to a "flame" 27,000,000 F and the range of that "danger zone" increases TREMENDOUSLY. This is a simple principle to understand.

RE 1 FE 0
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 10, 2007, 02:55:38 PM
The temperature will probably be disputed, and the sun is magical.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: homiemandude on June 10, 2007, 03:31:09 PM
captain Morgan and Bartholomew's pirate code. its more like guidelines actually!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Midnight on June 11, 2007, 08:41:42 AM
TRY AOL 90 DAYS FREE!!!!!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: homiemandude on June 11, 2007, 09:52:06 AM
zomby survival guide
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 11, 2007, 10:05:17 AM
I'll take my Victory Lap now. Thanks for playing assclowns.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Mr. Ireland on June 11, 2007, 01:23:36 PM
I'll take my Victory Lap now. Thanks for playing assclowns.

You didn't win, you have to be very patient on these forums.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 11, 2007, 05:12:05 PM
Quote
You keep calling him "Dr" yet Dogplatter says Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate in any field.  Please enlighten me as to why you refer to him as "Dr".

Rowbotham held a medical degree. Read "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" for a biography. I would reprint the material here in full, but that would be an insult to Ms. Christine Garwood.

I've completed a quick skim of Garwood's book. There is no reference to a medical degree that I can find to a medical degree. Would you care to provide a page number to your references, or perhaps you just made that up like so much else?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 05:53:33 PM
Quote
I've completed a quick skim of Garwood's book. There is no reference to a medical degree that I can find to a medical degree. Would you care to provide a page number to your references, or perhaps you just made that up like so much else?

From Page 151:

"For some years past Dr. Rowbotham could never under any consideration be induced to travel by rail. Patients or friends wishing to see him had to send their carriage for him and in the last few months he visited Brighton for the good of his health, traveling to and fro in a private carriage. Curiously enough the mode of conveyance in which he placed his faith accelerated his death. On an occasion, in several months past, he slipped and injured his leg when alighting from a cab, and from that time his health gradually failed."

"... Parallax's family and friends were understandably distressed. On New Year's Eve 1884 they laid him to rest as Samuel Birley Rowbotham M.D., Ph.D. in Crystal Palace District Cemetery under a gravestone bearing his Zetetic teachings."
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 05:57:32 PM
Wow, that's vague, at best.

So the only way we have to verify that Rowbotham held a doctorate was that his ardent followers put an MD and a PhD after his name on his gravestone?  That's... pretty tenuous.  ::)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 05:59:58 PM
Quote
So the only way we have to verify that Rowbotham held a doctorate was that his ardent followers put an MD and a PhD after his name on his gravestone?  That's... pretty tenuous.

Christine Garwood's entire book documents his medical career as a side note to his Flat Earth interests. Dr. Rowbotham was a practicing medical doctor and chemist. I suggest you pick up her book before making assumptions.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 06:01:25 PM
Well, actually, I wasn't making any assumptions, I was responding pretty specifically to what you posted.

Do you have a vested interest in this book being sold, Tom?  Are you, in fact, Christine Garwood?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 06:04:50 PM
I would reprint the material here in full, but that would be an insult to Ms. Christine Garwood.

Quoted for irony.  :D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 11, 2007, 06:16:48 PM
Quote
So the only way we have to verify that Rowbotham held a doctorate was that his ardent followers put an MD and a PhD after his name on his gravestone?  That's... pretty tenuous.

Christine Garwood's entire book documents his medical career as a side note to his Flat Earth interests. Dr. Rowbotham was a practicing medical doctor and chemist. I suggest you pick up the book before making assumptions.
That is a bold-faced lie. There are entire chapters that don't even mention him. Furthermore she does a great job of documenting what a quack he was (page 149).
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 06:18:17 PM
Being a snake oil salesman is not the same as being a medical professional, Tom.

Please post more passages/synopses showing how much of a fraud Rowbotham was, Gulliver.  That was entertaining.   ;D
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 06:31:52 PM
Quote
Being a snake oil salesman is not the same as being a medical professional, Tom.

Did you miss the part of Gulliver's quote which says "Wolfson alleged"?

Dr. Rowbotham made many enemies during his Flat Earth lectures. Christine Garwood does an excellent job of documenting the insults and criticisms thrown at Rowbotham. In one instance Dr. Rowbotham was actually mugged on the street before a lecture at a university for promoting his ideas of a Flat Earth.

Rowbotham receives as many positive reviews as he does negative:


Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 06:35:58 PM
I sure did.  It certainly casts doubt on Rowbotham's authenticity.  Or have you found something yet verifying that he actually held a doctorate?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 06:40:34 PM
Quote
Or have you found something yet verifying that he actually held a doctorate?

What evidence is there that you've graduated High School, Roundy?

Until you verify your credentials to me beyond the power of a doubt, until I see a written verification by your principal and parents, you will be considered an uneducated High School dropout.

Therefore, as a High School dropout who cannot even verify his own credentials, you have no business asking a deceased doctor of medicine to supply you with verification of his credentials. If you would like to see his diploma you are welcome to track down Rowbotham's remaining family and ask them for a peek.

Dr. Rowbotham lectured at dozens of universities over his career. How many universities have you lectured at?

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 11, 2007, 06:54:50 PM
Quote
Or have you found something yet verifying that he actually held a doctorate?

What evidence is there that you've graduated High School, Roundy?

Until you verify your credentials to me beyond the power of a doubt, until I see a written verification by your principal and parents, you will be considered an uneducated High School dropout.

Therefore, as a High School dropout who cannot even verify his own credentials, you have no business asking a deceased doctor of medicine to supply you with verification of his credentials. If you would like to see his diploma you are welcome to track down Rowbotham's remaining family and ask them for a peek.
Hey, that's not fair. You made the claim. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Attacking the person is an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't present a balanced review from your source. You've been called on it. Now answer the challenge.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 07:01:33 PM
Quote
Hey, that's not fair. You made the claim. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Attacking the person is an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't present a balanced review from your source. You've been called on it. Now answer the challenge.

Historian Christine Garwood calls Rowbotham a doctor, I call Robotham a doctor, Cambridge University calls Rowbotham a doctor, Rowbotham's family and friends called him a doctor. Christine Garwood's book clearly states that Rowbotham saw patients, and that it was his medical career which allowed him the money and ability to travel the world and lecture at prestigious universities. The burden of proof actually lies on you to prove that Dr. Rowbotham did not hold a medical degree. There is overwhelming evidence which suggests that he did.

How many published literary reviews have you received, Gulliver?

Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 11, 2007, 07:09:43 PM
Quote
Hey, that's not fair. You made the claim. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Attacking the person is an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't present a balanced review from your source. You've been called on it. Now answer the challenge.

Historian Christine Garwood calls Rowbotham a doctor, I call Robotham a doctor, Rowbotham's family and friends called him a doctor. Christine Garwood's book clearly says that Rowbotham saw patients, and it's his medical career that allowed him the money to travel the world and lecture at these prestigious universities. The burden of proof actually lies on you to prove that Dr. Rowbotham did not hold a medical degree.

How many published literary reviews have you gotten, Gulliver?
...
Again, you fail to provide a reference. Where does she call him "Dr. Rowbotham"? Since when does the supposed practice of quackery constitute receiving a medical degree? How long are you going to continue with ad hominem fallacies?[/list]
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 11, 2007, 08:02:54 PM
And here's another one.  He delivered all these lectures as "Parallax".  He didn't even use his own name.  So I don't see where the fact that he delivered a few well-received lectures constitutes evidence that he held any real credentials.

Did he lecture as "Dr Parallax, MD, PhD"?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 12, 2007, 12:21:21 AM
I want this book! Hurry up and finish it Gully so I can borrow it.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 12, 2007, 03:23:55 AM
What book is this? I want it too.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 06:33:17 AM
Quote
So the only way we have to verify that Rowbotham held a doctorate was that his ardent followers put an MD and a PhD after his name on his gravestone?  That's... pretty tenuous.

Christine Garwood's entire book documents his medical career as a side note to his Flat Earth interests. Dr. Rowbotham was a practicing medical doctor and chemist. I suggest you pick up her book before making assumptions.
Nope. Only five pages of 436 deal with his "medical" career, including the "quackery" allegation that I've already posted. One passage relates how he invented himself as a doctor. The remaining passage does speak of him as a medical doctor but the passage is mostly about his quackery, no allegation this time. I can find no reference to him as a "chemist" beyond his "snake oil".
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 06:34:56 AM
And here's another one.  He delivered all these lectures as "Parallax".  He didn't even use his own name.  So I don't see where the fact that he delivered a few well-received lectures constitutes evidence that he held any real credentials.

Did he lecture as "Dr Parallax, MD, PhD"?
No, he lectured as "Parallax". When acting as a doctor, he used the made-up name of "Dr. Birley".
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 06:45:22 AM
What book is this? I want it too.
Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea, Christine Garwood 2007 ISBN 978-1-4050-4702-9. I can't find it in the US, but amazon.co.uk does have it back in stock. Please reference: Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-History-Infamous-Idea/dp/140504702X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/203-6292308-9654334?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181655589&sr=8-1)

Anyone wishing to borrow my copy for thirty days should PM me with a mailing address. I'll pay shipping to you. You'll need to pay shipping back to me. Fair enough? Gayer is first in line.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 12, 2007, 12:04:55 PM
Woo I've never been first in line for anything!

I live in Buckingham Palace so just send it there.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 12, 2007, 12:48:42 PM
What does old Liz think of your residence at her house?
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 01:30:38 PM
What does old Liz think of your residence at her house?
Are you so sure that Gayer doesn't think she is the Queen of England? After all, she's delusional about her address.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on June 12, 2007, 01:31:26 PM
Gayer is the Queen and I'm the King
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 12, 2007, 03:09:27 PM
Fantastic, and I'm still Jesus.   8)
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ∂G/∂x on June 12, 2007, 03:13:36 PM
What are you gonna do about those other 88 Jesuses (should that be Jesii?)? You may be the Son of the one true God, but he sure must have a lot of other kids...and no imagination for names...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Jesus89 on June 12, 2007, 03:27:20 PM
lol 89 is for the Angel Sex my son. Pimpin' ain't easy.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on June 12, 2007, 03:51:12 PM
What does old Liz think of your residence at her house?
Are you so sure that Gayer doesn't think she is the Queen of England? After all, she's delusional about her address.

Think? I knows baby!
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 12, 2007, 03:55:01 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Midnight on June 13, 2007, 04:58:52 AM
I love the term "Flat Earth Interests".

Like believing in the inane (yes, the inane, as in, flat Earth or not, the debate really is moot) is a hobby kit you can purchase at Clothworld.

Absolutely entertaining.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Triangleman on January 25, 2010, 09:16:36 AM
Has any of you considered the possiblility that Tom Bishop is a spambot?
A thorough analysis of his post left me with the conclusion that
either he is:

1) a spambot
2) Jesus Christ

Since Jesus89 is already (2) I guess one can state that Tom is in fact a spambot.

p.s. There is also one other option, Tom bishop is just "a crazy person"
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ClockTower on September 14, 2010, 03:30:38 PM
So Tom Bishop basically is out of step with the rest of the FEers, and someone made him a FEW. That explains a great deal. I guess we can all give up on the Wiki. It's worthless.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: markjo on September 14, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
But Tom is also the only one who actually cared enough about (his version of) FET to actually put some effort into it.  That's more than I can say for most of the rest of the "believers".
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: ClockTower on September 14, 2010, 06:20:09 PM
But Tom is also the only one who actually cared enough about (his version of) FET to actually put some effort into it.  That's more than I can say for most of the rest of the "believers".
Point well taken.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheJackel on September 14, 2010, 09:33:02 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 14, 2010, 09:36:05 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheJackel on September 14, 2010, 09:56:58 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: markjo on September 15, 2010, 05:11:19 AM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheJackel on September 15, 2010, 09:33:08 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.

I am aware of that.. My post had nothing to do with the pen name other than that it reminded me of another argument with Tom in regards to how far the Sun and moon are away. Why can't anyone comprehend my post? lol
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: markjo on September 16, 2010, 05:05:44 AM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.

I am aware of that.. My post had nothing to do with the pen name other than that it reminded me of another argument with Tom in regards to how far the Sun and moon are away. Why can't anyone comprehend my post? lol

Because it didn't relate to the post that you responded to.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheJackel on September 16, 2010, 05:48:40 AM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.

I am aware of that.. My post had nothing to do with the pen name other than that it reminded me of another argument with Tom in regards to how far the Sun and moon are away. Why can't anyone comprehend my post? lol

Because it didn't relate to the post that you responded to.

I think it was quite clear enough that I was using "Parallax" as a key word to bring up another subject to which Tom Bishop failed at. Even the person that responded to my post first should have had a light bulb go on over their head to realize the purpose of my post lol..

"That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol."

[sarcasm]No sh_t really? Gah, I must have missed that entirely LOL [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 16, 2010, 06:51:48 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.

I am aware of that.. My post had nothing to do with the pen name other than that it reminded me of another argument with Tom in regards to how far the Sun and moon are away. Why can't anyone comprehend my post? lol

Because it didn't relate to the post that you responded to.

I think it was quite clear enough that I was using "Parallax" as a key word to bring up another subject to which Tom Bishop failed at. Even the person that responded to my post first should have had a light bulb go on over their head to realize the purpose of my post lol..

"That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol."

[sarcasm]No sh_t really? Gah, I must have missed that entirely LOL [/sarcasm]

I think you did and now you're trying to cover for it lol.
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: TheJackel on September 16, 2010, 07:47:18 PM
Doctor Parallax Sounds like a cheesy  60's sci-fi baddie...

Tom doesn't even comprehend how a proper parallax is done with Radar to avoid parallax error. And that is why we know the true distance of the Sun and the Moon. But I think I am stepping in to deeply here since this is for FErs only.. Just food for thought.

That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol.

 ???

I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

And to Tom Bishops arguments on the matter. Hence I wasn't referring to "Doctor Parallax" either.. It reminded me of another argument silly wabbit. Perhaps you would have figured that out from the context of the post lol.

Dr. Parallax refers to the pen name of Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, author of Earth Not a Globe.

I am aware of that.. My post had nothing to do with the pen name other than that it reminded me of another argument with Tom in regards to how far the Sun and moon are away. Why can't anyone comprehend my post? lol

Because it didn't relate to the post that you responded to.

I think it was quite clear enough that I was using "Parallax" as a key word to bring up another subject to which Tom Bishop failed at. Even the person that responded to my post first should have had a light bulb go on over their head to realize the purpose of my post lol..

"That statement is referring to Parallax, not parallax lol."

[sarcasm]No sh_t really? Gah, I must have missed that entirely LOL [/sarcasm]

I think you did and now you're trying to cover for it lol.

Evidence? Should I link to the specific posts concerning this subject on Parallax ? lol
Title: Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
Post by: whatRsatellites on September 16, 2010, 08:54:18 PM
Quote
Remember TomB: you have the opportunity to document your outlandish claim about your view across that bay near your home.

I have nothing further to prove to you. You are free to deny my observation as much as you'd like.

Quote
Not proof, but rather quite the opposite.

Even nearly stationary water must obey the convexity of the earth's gravity. Which part about that do you not understand?

Quote
You're wrong on both accounts.

Maybe you should back up your claims with solid experimental or observational evidence Gulliver. It seems to us that it's time for you to heed your own advice. Go do the experiment with proper documentation and a reliable witness and you'll further your cause.

Prove to us that the Old Bedford Canal really does flow in contradiction to Dr. Rowbotham's claims.  ::)



Hey im new to forum posts on this thing and for some reason it wont allow me to make a thread, anyways i have a question for Tom. Tom you do realize there is a company in Russia that will take you into space to the international space station. From there you could prove or disprove your hypothesis that the earth flat, because after all your using the word theory wrong and you do realize that you keep talking about science this or science that so it does start with a hypothesis that needs to be tested. So off of that basis maybe its time for you to do some walking instead of all talking?