Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon

  • 221 Replies
  • 28465 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #60 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #61 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:

    "An increase of heat is always experienced as we descend into the interior of the earth. . . . The estimate deduced by Mr. Hopkins from an accurate series of observations made in the Monkwearmouth shaft, near Durham, and in the Dukenfield shaft, near Manchester, each of them 2000 feet in depth. In these shafts the temperature was found to rise at the rate of 1 degree Fahrenheit for every increase of depth of from 65 to 70 feet."

    "So great is the heat within the earth, that in Switzerland and other countries where the springs of water are very deep, they bring to the surface the warm mineral waters so much used for baths and medicine for the sick; and it is said that if you were to dig very deep down into the earth, the temperature would increase at the rate of one degree of the thermometer for, every 100 feet; so that at the depth of 7000 feet, or one and a half miles, all the water that you found would be boiling; and at the depth of about 10 miles, all the rocks would be melted."

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?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 02:08:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #62 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.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #63 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #64 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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 02:27:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #65 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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #66 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? 

Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #67 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.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #68 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.

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #69 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.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #70 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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 02:33:15 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #71 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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 02:46:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64544
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2007, 02:45:43 PM »
I'm really going to miss you Tom and your delightful posts...
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #73 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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #74 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.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #75 on: June 04, 2007, 02:47:02 PM »
Tom should do his own FES podcasts.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #76 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!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #77 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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #78 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."
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 03:11:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #79 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?

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #80 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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #81 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."

« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 03:47:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #82 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #83 on: June 04, 2007, 03:49:00 PM »
Quote
It absolutely is not.

Ever hear of Cosmic Inflation?

    "In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region."

    "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]

There are alternative hypothetical models to Cosmic Inflation, of course. But Cosmic Inflation is part of the current agreed upon Big Bang Model.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 03:55:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #84 on: June 04, 2007, 03:55:28 PM »
Anything that starts at a finite size remains a finite size.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #85 on: June 04, 2007, 03:56:00 PM »
Quote
Anything that starts at a finite size remains a finite size.

Not your Big Bang!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #86 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.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 03:58:49 PM by Roundy the Contrite »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #87 on: June 04, 2007, 03:57:06 PM »
Tom Bishop's understanding of RE theory is very poor, let us enlighten him.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #88 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!
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 04:02:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« Reply #89 on: June 04, 2007, 04:01:17 PM »
Quote
It absolutely is not.

Ever hear of 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!