Where's your head at Tom?

  • 90 Replies
  • 17466 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #60 on: December 13, 2009, 07:45:00 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.

Who said that newts being spontaneously generated from mud was science?
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 #61 on: December 13, 2009, 01:37:38 PM »
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.

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."

Kind of like you walking outside one day and saying, "Oh, the Earth in my reference frame seems to be flat. The whole Earth must be flat." right?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2009, 01:41:26 PM »
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.

So what you're saying is since you disagree with Rowbotham that the moon is self-illuminated, that means every other theory of his is wrong?

I'm glad we cleared that up Tom.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2009, 01:55:20 PM »
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.

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."
It seems to me, and I'm sorry if I've got this wrong, that if Rowbotham's/any Flat Earth proofs or experiments are proven wrong or other evidence is called to the contrary, that it's chalked up to conspiracy. Now, I could apply that to "Frogs from Mud" deal.
Example: "Biologists just say that animals make other animals, but in truth it's a conspiracy, and they really do come from the environment."
The only difference between what you are bringing up and what you believe is that Aristotle didn't say it was part of a conspiracy if it went against what he said.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2009, 02:01:53 PM »
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.

So what you're saying is since you disagree with Rowbotham that the moon is self-illuminated, that means every other theory of his is wrong?

I'm glad we cleared that up Tom.
Sorry to be devil's advocate, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I believe his point is that things that are proven otherwise and that are obviously not science shouldn't be said it's science. No need to bring an opinion in.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2009, 04:44:25 PM »
Who said that newts being spontaneously generated from mud was science?

You RE'ers often hold up Aristotile's three proofs as if he ever "proved" anything. In discussions on the shape of the earth the first thing out of your mouths is "ARISTOTLE SAID", as if Aristotile had any credibility in matters of science.

What you forget to mention is that Aristotile also said that the earth was the center of the universe.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2009, 05:05:02 PM »
Tom, I don't think that any RE'er on this site has ever argued that Aristotle's model of the universe was completely correct.  I would contend that Aristotle, among other ancient Greeks, did help advance our understanding of the universe.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #67 on: December 13, 2009, 05:57:38 PM »
Tom, I don't think that any RE'er on this site has ever argued that Aristotle's model of the universe was completely correct.  I would contend that Aristotle, among other ancient Greeks, did help advance our understanding of the universe.

The problem is that you're making an appeal to an authority whose science is laughably wrong. Aristotile clearly only performed cursory research in his science. Holding up his work as if the subject matter had already been proven ages ago is a fallacy.

If you actually read Aristotile's works you'd find that they sound like someones rambling diary entries than anything. Aristotile never performs experiments, tells us where he got his information from, or how he even comes to his conclusions.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #68 on: December 13, 2009, 06:03:21 PM »
Tom, I don't think that any RE'er on this site has ever argued that Aristotle's model of the universe was completely correct.  I would contend that Aristotle, among other ancient Greeks, did help advance our understanding of the universe.

The problem is that you're making an appeal to an authority whose science is laughably wrong. Aristotile clearly only performed cursory research in his science. Holding up his work as if the subject matter had already been proven ages ago is a fallacy.

If you actually read Aristotile's works you'd find that they sound like someones rambling diary entries than anything. Aristotile never performs experiments, tells us where he got his information from, or how he even comes to his conclusions.

Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.  We use him more as a historical reference rather than as an authority.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #69 on: December 13, 2009, 06:05:17 PM »
Quote
Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2009, 06:10:31 PM »
Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.
I think this says otherwise...
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2009, 06:21:31 PM »
Quote
Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

Tom, like I said, Aristotle is more of a historical reference.  There's plenty of modern proof of a round earth, but you chalk it up to conspiracy.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2009, 06:41:07 PM »
Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.
I think this says otherwise...

Actually Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato were only supposed to have speculated about the earth being a sphere.

Aristotile is often credited with the one to have "proved" it.

The ancient greeks are selective and biased with their evidence to the extreme. For example, on that same page we read -

    "In The Histories, written 431 BCE - 425 BCE, Herodotus dismisses a report of the sun observed shining from the north. This arises when discussing the circumnavigation of Africa undertaken c. 615-595 BCE. (The Histories, 4.43) His dismissive comment attests to a widespread ignorance of the ecliptic's inverted declination in a southern hemisphere."

Although the sun is coming in from the north, Herodotus dismisses the account outright as being fabricated, because it's not what his round world model says should happen.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 06:49:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2009, 06:53:32 PM »
Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.
I think this says otherwise...

Actually Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato were only supposed to have speculated about the earth being a sphere.

Aristotile is often credited with the one to have "proved" it.

The ancient greeks are selective and biased with their evidence to the extreme. For example, on that same page we read -

    "In The Histories, written 431 BCE - 425 BCE, Herodotus dismisses a report of the sun observed shining from the north. This arises when discussing the circumnavigation of Africa undertaken c. 615-595 BCE. (The Histories, 4.43) His dismissive comment attests to a widespread ignorance of the ecliptic's inverted declination in a southern hemisphere."

Although the sun is coming in from the north, Herodotus dismisses the account outright as being fabricated, because it's not what his round world model says should happen.
Alright, I see, your point. Though, don't you do the same thing?
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2009, 08:05:55 PM »
Although the sun is coming in from the north, Herodotus dismisses the account outright as being fabricated, because it's not what his round world model says should happen.

The RE model was not yet complete at that time.  Much like the FE model is not yet complete at this 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.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2009, 10:04:41 PM »
But their science is derived off of what their math tells them.

What mathematical equations did they use to determine that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that frogs and newts spontaneously generated from mud?

There is no decisive scientific evidence to disprove spontaneous generation. Any evidence you provide to the contrary is easily disprovable, unless of course it is not, in which case I will have no choice but to conclude that it is part of a massive global conspiracy to mislead the public.

Now if only we had more money to fund research...
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2009, 04:14:49 PM »
Quote
Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

That's science history not modern science.

Another "quack quack" from Bishop.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2009, 06:08:33 PM »
remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2009, 06:13:33 PM »
remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.
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 #79 on: December 14, 2009, 06:14:04 PM »
remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

You can't tell an eliptical arc from a circular arc. They are basically one in the same.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM »
remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

You can't tell an eliptical arc from a circular arc. They are basically one in the same.

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

O -----> / --------> o

O=sun
/=flat earth at an angle
o=moon
-----> = light : D
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #81 on: December 15, 2009, 06:02:35 AM »
That's not how the sun and moon work on a FE, it's more like this
____O____o____
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #82 on: December 15, 2009, 10:59:01 AM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #83 on: December 15, 2009, 01:23:10 PM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #84 on: December 15, 2009, 01:33:48 PM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #85 on: December 15, 2009, 06:39:29 PM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.

But... none of those things exist! *head explodes*
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #86 on: December 16, 2009, 03:13:20 AM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.

But... none of those things exist! *head explodes*


Oh my god! You're right! *head explodes*
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #87 on: December 16, 2009, 03:38:24 AM »
They think they have valid points *head explodes*
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #88 on: December 16, 2009, 04:24:58 AM »
They think they have valid points *head explodes*

So do you. *head implodes*
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #89 on: December 16, 2009, 11:11:14 AM »
They think they have valid points *head explodes*

So do you. *head implodes*
At least you didn't make a mess. Thanks!
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"