• 90 Replies
• 17761 Views

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2009, 02:00:46 PM »
Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

See, you've fallen into Bishop's trap here. You have assumed that something he tells you is correct - but it isn't.
The only thing Bishop is correct about regarding solar eclipses is that the data and time of an eclipse can be predicted using the charts he refers to.
However, those charts ONLY predict when an eclipse will happen, NOT where it can be seen from. In order to do that, one must use the data about the eclipse in conjunction with an accurate map of the earth. This can be done perfectly using round earth maps. Given that flat earth maps are different from round earth maps, and the ability to predict eclipses shows round earth maps to be correct, it logically follows that the round earth must exist, or else the maps would not be accurate enough to predict eclipse viewing locations.

Are you saying that it would be impossible to predict the location of a solar eclipse on a Flat Earth?

No, it would be possible if you had an accurate map of the flat earth, but there isn't one. It is also possible to work out from this that there cannot be an accurate map of a flat earth because it would conflict with the round earth map, which has been proven by the eclipse prediction method to be correct. If the map can be proved to work, it follows that the round earth must also be correct. If the earth was flat, round earth maps would be useless to predict eclipses because they would be wrong.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong. [by which I meant becomes inaccurate for predicting the phenomenon]

You aren't understanding him.  The parametric equations can be used to predict the alignment of the sun moon and earth as functions of time, s(t), m(t) and e(t).  Their orbits are described by these parametric equations, so calculating the alignment of the 3 is a matter of solving for the times where they align.  The second part of the problem is what portions of the Earth will be able to view this event, which will be described by the path of the shadow of the moon as it passes across the earth.  The path of the eclipse can be shown on a map of the flat earth, however, as the map of the flat earth, which has a distorted relationship of the southern continents, cannot accurately depict the orientation of the southern continents, when the path of visibility of the eclipse is plotted it will not match with the path of travel of the sun, or if the path of travel of the sun is plotted the accounts of the eclipse will not match what is observed.  On a spherical map of the earth the rotation of the earth can be used to clarify which portions of the Earth will be facing the sun between ti and tf between the start and end of the eclipse and the path of the shadow mapped onto the earth via the sun's normal observed path.

That's incorrect. There are several different charts for different areas of the earth. There's one for the Americas and one for Europe for example. It has nothing to do with any particular layout of the earth. The prediction charts are location specific.

#### Johannes

• Flat Earth Editor
• 2755
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2009, 02:21:48 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Also, ad hominem attacks are not allowed and THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2009, 02:39:58 PM »
That's incorrect.  It has nothing to do with any particular layout of the earth.

Fine example of Bishop's Razor, there.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34572.40
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2009, 02:41:22 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Also, ad hominem attacks are not allowed and THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2009, 02:43:50 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Also, ad hominem attacks are not allowed and THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned.

1. It is not clear that the flat guys know more than the round guys. That statement is baseless. We have come up with lots of examples of holes in FET. Where are your examples of holes in RET? Sorry, can't hear you...?
2. "THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned" is an ad hominem.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42540
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2009, 03:21:35 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Is FE'ers knowledge of RET supposed to make up for the failings of FET?  Has anyone ever developed a model showing how the orbits of the sun and moon cause solar eclipses to occur in FET?  I'd love to see a scale diagram some time.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### LiceFarm

• 542
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2009, 04:58:26 PM »
That's incorrect. There are several different charts for different areas of the earth. There's one for the Americas and one for Europe for example. It has nothing to do with any particular layout of the earth. The prediction charts are location specific.

Tell us how the ancient Greeks were able to produce charts for the Americas.

Also, ad hominem attacks are not allowed and THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned.

Since you're a moderator why don't you just go ahead and ban him yourself?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2009, 05:02:43 PM »
Quote
Tell us how the ancient Greeks were able to produce charts for the Americas.

They didn't produce Solar Eclipse records for the Americas.

But their Lunar Eclipse cycles can be used to predict the eclipse in America since the eclipse is visible to anyone world-wide who can see the moon.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2009, 05:38:40 PM »
Quote
Tell us how the ancient Greeks were able to produce charts for the Americas.

They didn't produce Solar Eclipse records for the Americas.

But their Lunar Eclipse cycles can be used to predict the eclipse in America since the eclipse is visible to anyone world-wide who can see the moon.

Lunar eclipses are not relevant to destruction of flat earth theory, try to keep up. (Mind you, they do disprove the "glowing moon" idea that James dribbles about).
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Gigamonsta

• 343
• Earth Shape Agnostic (ESA) - QUESTION EVERYTHING
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2009, 06:35:58 PM »
Quote
Tell us how the ancient Greeks were able to produce charts for the Americas.

They didn't produce Solar Eclipse records for the Americas.

But their Lunar Eclipse cycles can be used to predict the eclipse in America since the eclipse is visible to anyone world-wide who can see the moon.

Lunar eclipses are not relevant to destruction of flat earth theory, try to keep up. (Mind you, they do disprove the "glowing moon" idea that James dribbles about).

Some of us have attempted to logically explain the problem of Lunar eclipses.
Realistically the idea of such an eclipse strikes me as quite ridiculous. Maybve we should b asking if there are clouds on the moon? Perhaps the moon light is able to peirce these clouds but when there are a thick layer we see an eclipse?!

#### Johannes

• Flat Earth Editor
• 2755
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2009, 07:35:30 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Is FE'ers knowledge of RET supposed to make up for the failings of FET?  Has anyone ever developed a model showing how the orbits of the sun and moon cause solar eclipses to occur in FET?  I'd love to see a scale diagram some time.

how do you know the sun and moon cause solar eclipses?

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42540
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2009, 07:41:29 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Is FE'ers knowledge of RET supposed to make up for the failings of FET?  Has anyone ever developed a model showing how the orbits of the sun and moon cause solar eclipses to occur in FET?  I'd love to see a scale diagram some time.

how do you know the sun and moon cause solar eclipses?

Because the moon passing in front of the sun is the definition of a solar eclipse?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### Mookie89

• 1327
• Artilles is a goddess
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2009, 10:45:49 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Is FE'ers knowledge of RET supposed to make up for the failings of FET?  Has anyone ever developed a model showing how the orbits of the sun and moon cause solar eclipses to occur in FET?  I'd love to see a scale diagram some time.

how do you know the sun and moon cause solar eclipses?

Could it possibly be because of...... OH!!! How about because the moon passes in front of the sun!!! That's a good theory, I'll chalk that up since the RE conspirators never thought to answer that one before.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 05:00:09 PM by The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

#### Its a Sphere

• 1495
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2009, 04:58:33 PM »
That's incorrect. There are several different charts for different areas of the earth. There's one for the Americas and one for Europe for example. It has nothing to do with any particular layout of the earth. The prediction charts are location specific.

What do you think generates a chart?  Equations do.  Amazing how one could parameterize the spin of the earth also and obtain the match for location of the eclipse.  In this case the objective would be to find what locations the vector of sight could passs through the sun and moon without intersecting the earth.  Conveniently they can run the equations in the opposite direction and get past eclipses as well.

Quote
It has nothing to do with any particular layout of the earth. The prediction charts are location specific.
As in dependant on the layout of the earth beneath the shadow?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2009, 05:10:52 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents...

Also, ad hominem attacks are not allowed and THE EARTH IS ROUND!!!! should be banned.

?

#### Robert64

• 121
• Lives on a Round Earth
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2009, 11:52:43 PM »
Round Earthers: Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is clear most Flat Earthers on this site know much more about round earth theory than most round earth proponents..
Hahaha! That made my day, thanks Tom!

#### Ichimaru Gin :]

• Undefeated FEer
• Planar Moderator
• 8904
• Semper vigilans
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2009, 04:29:54 PM »
Quote
Tell us how the ancient Greeks were able to produce charts for the Americas.

They didn't produce Solar Eclipse records for the Americas.

But their Lunar Eclipse cycles can be used to predict the eclipse in America since the eclipse is visible to anyone world-wide who can see the moon.
(Mind you, they do disprove the "glowing moon" idea that James dribbles about).
Mind you, if you had read his theory, you would know that they do not.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

#### Skeleton

• 956
• Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2009, 10:19:52 AM »
How does it not disprove a glowing moon? If an object comes between the moon and earth to cause the eclipse, the moon would be totally invisible which it isnt. If instead a shadow is cast on the moon we would still see it as bright as ever.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

#### Raiku

• 118
• War Squirrel.
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2009, 08:35:26 PM »
Lol, he'll never let go of his newts in mud thing, because it's the only defense he has...  Is that really a valid arguement?  Do newts really prove the shape of the earth?
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

?

#### Mookie89

• 1327
• Artilles is a goddess
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2009, 02:58:24 AM »
Lol, he'll never let go of his newts in mud thing, because it's the only defense he has...  Is that really a valid arguement?  Do newts really prove the shape of the earth?

In a word..... not at all.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2009, 03:00:52 AM »
Lol, he'll never let go of his newts in mud thing, because it's the only defense he has...  Is that really a valid arguement?  Do newts really prove the shape of the earth?

Actually it just proves that Aristotile made up his science.

?

#### Mookie89

• 1327
• Artilles is a goddess
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2009, 03:03:13 AM »
Lol, he'll never let go of his newts in mud thing, because it's the only defense he has...  Is that really a valid arguement?  Do newts really prove the shape of the earth?

Actually it just proves that Aristotile made up his science.

So one thing he said defines his whole career? That's very shallow of you Tom, I thought FE'ers were supposed to be open-minded, but clearly you are not.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2009, 04:52:39 AM »
So one thing he said defines his whole career?

Well when you teach people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud it kind of defines how much research you really put into your science.

It doesn't extend to just frogs and newts either. Aristotle seems to think that all animals spontaneously generate from the environment at birth.

Like he walked outside one day and said, "Oh, I saw a salamander crawling around in mud. They must come from mud. Gophers come from dirt. Birds come from the trees. And flies? It's obvious that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat."
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 10:19:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### d00gz

• 641
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2009, 05:02:43 AM »
So Tom, are you insinuating here, that you have never ever in your life, been wrong about anything?

If this is not the case, your comments are fairly hypocritical. Just because someone was wrong about one thing, does that make everything the say false?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #54 on: December 13, 2009, 05:15:02 AM »
If this is not the case, your comments are fairly hypocritical. Just because someone was wrong about one thing, does that make everything the say false?

It's not a matter of him being wrong.

It's a matter of you RE'ers representing Aristotle's science as a science when it's not.

?

#### d00gz

• 641
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2009, 05:20:56 AM »
Prove to me that all of his work is not science.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2009, 05:27:52 AM »
Prove to me that all of his work is not science.

Experiments need to be conducted in order for it to be a science.

See: Scientific Method

?

#### d00gz

• 641
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2009, 05:29:59 AM »
Aside from the fact that you cannot prove he never carried out any physical experiments, what about a thought experiment?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17946
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2009, 05:31:44 AM »
Aside from the fact that you cannot prove he never carried out any physical experiments, what about a thought experiment?

Thought experiments aren't part of the scientific method.

?

#### d00gz

• 641
##### Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2009, 05:41:19 AM »
And anything and everything that isn't shown using your preferred method is incorrect?