This simply cannot be

This thread is a crime against reason.

your existence is a crime against evolution

Ahaha.

Quote from: Hannibal Lecter on September 06, 2007, 09:41:22 PM

This thread is a crime against reason.

your existence is a crime against evolution

Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.

Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.

More like, prepare for a thesaurus-infested spiel of insults.

LOL

if its coming from hannibal, i suppose i can expect some quote he edited to make the other guy look stupid, some "translation", or some nonsensical graphic

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:52:35 PM

Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.

More like, prepare of a thesaurus-infested spiel of insults.

The endgame is always the same.   

if its coming from hannibal, i suppose i can expect some quote he edited to make the other guy look stupid, some "translation", or some nonsensical graphic

Of course this is based on your extensive experience in dealing with a superior being. This will entertain me.

Bring it, my child. 

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 08:26:28 PM

Quote from: Hannibal Lecter on September 06, 2007, 08:23:24 PM

Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" provides historical data showing that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.

There were a few objections to the referee's decision, however, which is why there is still some dispute today.

This is not true. Tom Bishop lies, again. I have the book. I've read the book. Christine provides no such historical data.

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

I checked the reference. You lied.
Einstein did not maintain that gravity as a force did not exist. You lied.
Einstein stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Quote

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics

The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear in her work that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides accurate historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at it, but dismisses the recorded results which shows objects appearing when they should be behind the curve of the earth as "chance optical illusions."

Quote

b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously

Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.

Quote

c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

There could be a number of mechanisms for object falling to the ground: upwards acceleration of the earth, dark energy, quantum mechanic's theory of gravitation, the Aristotelian theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordström's theory of gravitation, or Whitehead's theory of gravitation.

Each of these are just as likely as the increasingly discredited theory of "Gravity."

TomB's latest lies are in bold font above.
Christine Garwood made no such statement.
Newton's theory was improved upon, not shown to be wrong.
These theories are discredited or unsupported as well as Newton's theory of gravity. Many of these theories reject the FE premise that the mass of the FE doesn't produce gravity.

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.

Do pay attention!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

I checked the reference. You lied.
Einstein did not maintain that gravity as a force did not exist. You lied.
Einstein stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Like Tom actually read "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.  He would rather just keep assuming it contains information that proves the earth is flat. 

I still wanna read that book, when you gonna lend it to me Gully?

I still wanna read that book, when you gonna lend it to me Gully?

Right after you give me your real address. Funny thing how I can't mail a book to you with an address.

I'll give you my address if you give me yours

I'll give you my address if you give me yours

You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?

Funny that Garwood was an RE'er and nothing came of it, Yet Brahe was an FE'er and we now have some of the most fundamental laws of physics that are based upon his measurements, now granted the results were found by Kepler but that was what he was hired for. and both of them neede to change their Idea about the universe based upon what they found. So it does not really matter what you think when you start the numbers are what they are.

Funny that Garwood was an RE'er and nothing came of it, Yet Brahe was an FE'er and we now have some of the most fundamental laws of physics that are based upon his measurements, now granted the results were found by Kepler but that was what he was hired for. and both of them neede to change their Idea about the universe based upon what they found. So it does not really matter what you think when you start the numbers are what they are.

Irony.

Quote from: General Swiss Army Penis on September 07, 2007, 10:14:03 AM

I'll give you my address if you give me yours

You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?

I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....

But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)

Quote from: Gulliver on September 07, 2007, 10:23:22 AM

Quote from: General Swiss Army Penis on September 07, 2007, 10:14:03 AM

I'll give you my address if you give me yours

You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?

I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....

But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)

Seriously, PM me your address. I will post the book to you within a day or two.

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:11:40 PM

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.

Do pay attention!

I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 07, 2007, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:11:40 PM

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.

Do pay attention!

I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.

You seem confused. I've posted many times explaining that gross failures of the UA, including the variation of 'g' by latitude and altitude and the Cavendish experiment. The only trick that I recall mentioning regularly is the trick FE uses to get the "felt" gravity. I do encourage FE challenger not to attack the UA's mimicking of the primary effects of gravity.

Perhaps you should write down some notes to refer to in the future.

Gulliver was caught, because more than one of us saw that post in question. You lose, Gulliver.

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 07, 2007, 06:17:52 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 07, 2007, 09:28:22 AM

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:11:40 PM

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 09:08:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.

Do pay attention!

I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.

You seem confused. I've posted many times explaining that gross failures of the UA, including the variation of 'g' by latitude and altitude and the Cavendish experiment. The only trick that I recall mentioning regularly is the trick FE uses to get the "felt" gravity. I do encourage FE challenger not to attack the UA's mimicking of the primary effects of gravity.

Perhaps you should write down some notes to refer to in the future.

The basic concept works.

Quote from: General Swiss Army Penis on September 07, 2007, 04:00:01 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 07, 2007, 10:23:22 AM

Quote from: General Swiss Army Penis on September 07, 2007, 10:14:03 AM

I'll give you my address if you give me yours

You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?

I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....

But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)

Seriously, PM me your address. I will post the book to you within a day or two.

Alright then, will do. Don't parcel bomb me....or anthrax me

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.

Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.

With the claims Tom is making he'd better have every i dotted.

Quote from: emailking on September 21, 2007, 09:41:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.

Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.

You've said the same thing.  That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time

Quote from: Gulliver on September 21, 2007, 09:57:39 AM

Quote from: emailking on September 21, 2007, 09:41:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.

Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.

You've said the same thing.  That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time

Really where did I say that Bushy? Was it the same imaginary post where I had Newton's Second Law of Motion wrong?