the equivalence principle . . .

  • 40 Replies
  • 7586 Views
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2007, 10:07:07 PM »
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2007, 11:44:42 AM »
looking for an intelligent reply...

possibly about the topic of this thread...

Tom only responded once, and it was to ramble about religion...










/bump
« Last Edit: June 09, 2007, 02:49:37 PM by thesublime514 »

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2007, 02:54:29 PM »
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!

What is SunSpots.xlsx?

And also, I think we should make a collection of Tom's small rantings/speeches and possibly compile them into a book.  They're just so.. amazing.  I don't think I could make up things so priceless if I was paid to.

Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2007, 03:12:19 PM »
... Of course, Round Earthers don't have anything tangible, anything experimental - just a few mosaics originating from a shady source. A bunch of rubbish, really. ...
Please explain the reason you've not refuted SunSpots.xlsx. How is this not experimental evidence? Re predicts the location of the sun in the sky. It predicts the time of sunrise and sunset. It predicts the shape and size of the Sun and Moon throughout the day and night. It predicts the phases of the Moon, the Sun, and the inner planets. FE does not. It seems to us that you're the one talking rubbish, really!

What is SunSpots.xlsx?

And also, I think we should make a collection of Tom's small rantings/speeches and possibly compile them into a book.  They're just so.. amazing.  I don't think I could make up things so priceless if I was paid to.
Sorry, TomB knows about what I spoke, but, alas, I should have considered others. I apologize.

SunSpots.xlsx is a workbook I built to predict the position of the Sun for anytime from any position on the surface of the Earth. (I did not consider altitude, the refractive nature of the Earth's atmosphere, or the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit. I provide complete mathematical explanations for both theories. I allow the user to enter their position and the time of the observation then provide the position of the Sun as both models predict. I suggest that the user compare reality with the predictions as experimental evidence for the determining the model that makes better predictions. I've yet to receive any refutation from anyone. I would have expected someone to find an programming error, at least.

Here's a link to Version 0.3 http://rapidshare.com/files/36224415/SunSpot.xlsx.html (This is the 2007 version. Let me know if you need 97-2003 version.)

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2007, 05:22:31 PM »
I said the same thing in Gin's sunsets and wave crests thread. Tom doesn't know anything. Whenever Tom or most of the FE proponents come across a thread or topic they can't answer they ignore the points that contradict what they say, and then proceed to attack some random comment in the thread thinking they've done something good. As is evident above Tom ignores the actually point of the thread to comment on some arbitrary crap about religion. Which ironically only seemed to strengthen the point he was countering. Yes Tom FE doesn't ignore the actually scientific evidence like a religion, that's just exactly what you are doing as you made that comment, and I might have ignore this glaring contradiction if I didn't find it so funny.

FE is a religion. It is not based in science it is based in faith. Faith in a massive global conspiracy, faith in a 130 year old book, faith in pseudo-science and a 60000 mile icewall guarded by 600 men. FE is largely religion-based in that it hinges on the earth being for some reason different from the rest of the universe. Everything else is observably spherical, what makes the earth so special that it should be different, if it isn't a religious thing that is? Remember that whole God put man at the center of the universe that was the religious idea. What makes it so special for FE? The fact that humans are here, and we must be special? I would really like to know what it is because nobody has answered me on that yet.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2007, 08:55:32 PM »
I said the same thing in Gin's sunsets and wave crests thread. Tom doesn't know anything. Whenever Tom or most of the FE proponents come across a thread or topic they can't answer they ignore the points that contradict what they say, and then proceed to attack some random comment in the thread thinking they've done something good. As is evident above Tom ignores the actually point of the thread to comment on some arbitrary crap about religion. Which ironically only seemed to strengthen the point he was countering. Yes Tom FE doesn't ignore the actually scientific evidence like a religion, that's just exactly what you are doing as you made that comment, and I might have ignore this glaring contradiction if I didn't find it so funny.

FE is a religion. It is not based in science it is based in faith. Faith in a massive global conspiracy, faith in a 130 year old book, faith in pseudo-science and a 60000 mile icewall guarded by 600 men. FE is largely religion-based in that it hinges on the earth being for some reason different from the rest of the universe. Everything else is observably spherical, what makes the earth so special that it should be different, if it isn't a religious thing that is? Remember that whole God put man at the center of the universe that was the religious idea. What makes it so special for FE? The fact that humans are here, and we must be special? I would really like to know what it is because nobody has answered me on that yet.

Aliens ftw.

RE: See my rant above.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2007, 08:57:13 PM »
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

*

thesublime514

  • 131
  • I am the Walrus.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2007, 08:59:49 PM »
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

I think there's a robot on the other end.  We're typing in the same queries and getting the same responses.

Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2007, 09:42:02 PM »
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

Oh you know... just Wallace's experiment at Bedford, and experiments repeated later which also showed the same thing, namely the rotundity of the earth. Oh and here's another one.. pictures of the earth from space.. direct evidence.. not necessarily from the Apollo missions if you don't believe in them, but the ones taken by probes and such, which show the full earth. Oh but wait.. I almost forgot.. massive conspiracy. Or could it be that 'quote the bible for literal meaning' Rowbotham was just I dunno.. wrong? Or maybe FE is the real conspiracy!! hmm.. big improbable conspiracy vs. tiny irrelevant ones. Or maybe they're just idiots and the FE model proposed doesnt work since the sun doesn't actually set on it the way it's supposed to (yeah that's right, get back to that thread). Of course this doesn't prove the earth is round per se.. it could still be a flat slab floating in space, but then you couldn't circumnavigate at all soo.. i guess both of those together pretty much disprove FE. Oh here's another one, I almost forgot, how about you adress the arguments originally put forth in this thread. Yeah.. let's do that first eh? .. oh and Tom, please don't ever have children..
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 09:43:37 PM by slappy »
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2007, 09:53:02 PM »
Quote
FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?
oh hum, SunSpots.xlsx, again...

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2007, 01:12:21 AM »
Sorry, I won't mention that again. It just makes Tom ignore all the facts and scientific evidence to respond to it and say we ignore all the scientific evidence. Which just happens to prove the point I was trying to make in the first place, but I don't think Tom sees that.

If you respond again Tom please answer the topic of the thread. Maybe you could find the time to answer the Wave crests and Sunsets thread(as mentioned above) or any of the other threads still left unanswered as well.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.