Why does Tom not want to address this?

  • 102 Replies
  • 12941 Views
?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2009, 07:51:29 PM »
For the purposes of insight, I am making no presumption as to the shape of the planet.

Fair enough.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2009, 08:00:55 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

If I based my theories of the universe on my perceivable surroundings I would deduce that the entire earth is covered in snow and that everybody has Canadian accents.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2009, 08:04:52 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

If I based my theories of the universe on my perceivable surroundings I would deduce that the entire earth is covered in snow and that everybody has Canadian accents.

And I would perceive that the world is 90% black and everyone speaks with a southern accent.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2009, 08:07:07 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

If I based my theories of the universe on my perceivable surroundings I would deduce that the entire earth is covered in snow and that everybody has Canadian accents.

And I would perceive that the world is 90% black and everyone speaks with a southern accent.

Perhaps the truth is somewhere inbetween.
( ) or _ ?

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2009, 08:08:26 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

If I based my theories of the universe on my perceivable surroundings I would deduce that the entire earth is covered in snow and that everybody has Canadian accents.

And I would perceive that the world is 90% black and everyone speaks with a southern accent.

Perhaps the truth is somewhere inbetween.

Not for me, I base my beliefs only on what I see, not what others see.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2009, 08:15:15 PM »

Not for me, I base my beliefs only on what I see, not what others see.

That would make the truth giddily subjective, and we would have no checks against believing all kinds of nonsense.

No, the world is half-covered in snow and the people are 45% black.
( ) or _ ?

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2009, 08:18:28 PM »

Not for me, I base my beliefs only on what I see, not what others see.

That would make the truth giddily subjective, and we would have no checks against believing all kinds of nonsense.

No, the world is half-covered in snow and the people are 45% black.

Tell that to the FE'ers.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2009, 08:21:15 PM »

Not for me, I base my beliefs only on what I see, not what others see.

That would make the truth giddily subjective, and we would have no checks against believing all kinds of nonsense.

No, the world is half-covered in snow and the people are 45% black.

Tell that to the FE'ers.

For a roundy, you're very sharp.
( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2009, 08:28:19 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

Just like the Earth doesn't look like a sphere... I think you're onto something here.

I'm leaning towards flat Earth, flat sun.

Anti-curvature corrections in our vision is another possibility. That would mean that things which look like spheres are some kind of hypersphere though. Hmmm. Well, I haven't worked out all the details, but it seems plausible.

It's funny you're commending someone on being intelligent. If I were him, I'd be properly insulted. No offense. But you DO know the path of least resistance when dealing with liquids that have a surface pull towards each other, right? Like a droplet of water.

Our eye's functionality is far different than a camera's. Why do you suppose a camera would pick up the exact same curves? It's not the way light works, we know how light works, that's how we build cameras.

I'm a photographer and studying physics and engineering btw. Good luck.


But a lighthouse's light does not have light shining from all angles simultaneously, as a spherical sun does.

If you take out the searchlight and replace it with a giant lightbulb on the roof the same principle apply.

 The light from the lighthouse is limited to a distinct circle upon the earth.

Tom, the light bulb is circle, the light is spinning slowly in a circle... The light will only go so far, THE DISTANCE IN WHICH THE LIGHT TRAVELS IS THE SAME IN ALL DIRECTIONS. THE LIGHT IS CIRCLE BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS MOVING IN A CIRCLE. With a FLAT surface to reflect light, all light will once again, using YOUR EXAMPLE, travel the same distance as all the surrounding light, creating a FLAT, NON CIRCULAR reflection of light.

Once again I must ask are you getting paid for this in any way?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 08:38:04 PM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2009, 08:37:19 PM »
But you DO know the path of least resistance when dealing with liquids that have a surface pull towards each other, right? Like a droplet of water.

Is this an answer to the snow question?


Quote
Our eye's functionality is far different than a camera's.


Perhaps we flatten out the curves when we look at a photographic image. The anti-curvature correction wouldn't go away.

Quote
Why do you suppose a camera would pick up the exact same curves?

It picks up some curves, as do our eyes, but the sun looks like a circle, not a sphere.


Quote
It's not the way light works, we know how light works, that's how we build cameras.

With our anti-curved vision. Maybe. It's just a theory. the details might need tweaking. Or I could reject that and move towards flat Earth, flat sun. If I had more opinions I could maybe average between them.

What's your opinion on the snow and accent question, btw?


Quote
I'm a photographer and studying physics and engineering btw. Good luck.

I'm a pastry chef and studying the mating habits of shrimp. Mazeltov.



Edit to include the edit of Viper-X: The additional information that he is studying physics and engineering.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 08:44:20 PM by Idee Unfixe »
( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2009, 08:51:00 PM »
But you DO know the path of least resistance when dealing with liquids that have a surface pull towards each other, right? Like a droplet of water.

Is this an answer to the snow question?

Wow you lost me already. No. You do know that the sun is liquid... Right? I'm going to stop asking what you do or do not know. That was an ill judgment on my part.


Quote
Our eye's functionality is far different than a camera's.


Perhaps we flatten out the curves when we look at a photographic image. The anti-curvature correction wouldn't go away.

We flatten out the curves when we look at an image... Once again I want to bare with you but is your first language even English? Camera's see the same things we do at a 35mm optical focal length. What you said is opposite of that FACT

Quote
Why do you suppose a camera would pick up the exact same curves?

It picks up some curves, as do our eyes, but the sun looks like a circle, not a sphere.

Take a spherical black ball, stick it to your wall somehow, remove all shadow created from the black ball, and it will look like you have a CIRCLE hole in your wall. When you remove shade, you render the 3 dimensional perspective. How much shade do you suppose is on the sun?

This is why the moon looks round, and the sun looks flat. The sun is liquid, it cannot be flat...for the love of holy Christ.



Quote
It's not the way light works, we know how light works, that's how we build cameras.

With our anti-curved vision. Maybe. It's just a theory. the details might need tweaking. Or I could reject that and move towards flat Earth, flat sun. If I had more opinions I could maybe average between them.

What's your opinion on the snow and accent question, btw?

No it's not a theory. A theory can be BACKED by science, or so far ahead of current science that it cannot be proven. This is not a theory, it's an explanation people created who are not properly intellectualized. This is the type of thought you'd expect from children.

As for your snow and accent "question", it was a statement on the EARTH, not the UNIVERSE. And it's something you may need to acknowledge yourself on further. What we know IS our surroundings. Your real problem is not being able to view a large enough portion of what surrounds you.

That is, if you look at the ground in front of you, it looks flat. Therefor, the Earth must be flat.



Quote
I'm a photographer btw. Good luck.

I'm a pastry chef. Mazeltov.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 09:00:29 PM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2009, 09:08:22 PM »
You do know that the sun is liquid... Right? I'm going to stop asking what you do or do not know. That was an ill judgment on my part.

It was.

Parsifal said it might be a quark-gluon plasma.

I am going to average over these opinions and say that it is gas, but baryonic and part-ionized (45% and the rest Canadian?). Like a plasma.





Quote
Take a spherical black ball, stick it to your wall somehow, remove all shadow created from the black ball, and it will look like you have a CIRCLE hole in your wall. When you remove shade, you render the 3 dimensional perspective. How much shade do you suppose is on the sun?

45%?




Quote
A theory can be BACKED by science, or so far ahead of current science that it cannot be proven. This is not a theory, it's an explanation people created who are not properly intellectualized. This is the type of thought you'd expect from children.

Children can't do science?





Quote
if you look at the ground in front of you, it looks flat. Therefor, the Earth must be flat.

Okay. Maybe it's flat.

( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2009, 09:15:32 PM »
Children have wacky imaginations. You failed to argue any of my comments with logical answers. You failed to provide even serious or seemingly thought out answers. Nothing you said in your previous post was even worth writing for any reason. You seem to mock your own beliefs by further insulting your intelligence on purpose.

You're right the sun is Gas, liquid Gas. Physics says nothing can burn that long unless in a compressed form until its energy is released due to chemical reaction.

Liquid.

Spherical.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 09:22:04 PM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2009, 09:22:07 PM »
Quote
You failed to argue any of my comments with logical answers.

Didn't we begin a discussion about the phase of the sun?

Is it a liquid or a gas or a liquid gas?

I think we should use Parsifal's name - plasma. It sounds nice and can be a name for a distinct state of matter. Not quite a liquid or a gas. Plasma. I like it.

Unless the sun is a spotlight. Then it's a solid. With argon gas in the bulbs, perhaps.



Quote
You seem to mock your own beliefs by further insulting your intelligence on purpose.

You should try it.

What do I believe?

« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 09:31:35 PM by Idee Unfixe »
( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2009, 09:30:26 PM »
Quote
No, it's not Tom.

Does the bulb on a table lamp focus all of it's light into a circular point on your wall? No, it spreads light throughout the whole room.

But it doesn't spread its light throughout your whole state when you put it on your roof.

Here, we see Tom Bishop making a point based on legitimate science. Once again, it does not relate to the question.

Here's where Tom is right. If we were to witness the light from a large single lamp in a dark area we would in fact see a sphere of light.

Here's where Tom gets confused. If we take a light source and reflect its light from a flat surface we do NOT get a spherical light.

In the video, we see the Earth pointed AWAY from the sun. That atmospheric light, when reflected from the same distance of the sun, should be flat. Only when the Earth is round will we see a round light reflection. This is a fact that cannot be argued.

One more of the hundreds of things I can list that would PROVE the Earth to be round.

What can you offer that goes beyond only SUGGESTING the Earth MIGHT be flat?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 09:33:24 PM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2009, 09:39:48 PM »
Quote from: Viper-X
Once again I want to bare with you but is your first language even English?

Keep your clothes on.
( ) or _ ?

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2009, 07:36:04 AM »
Quote from: Viper-X
Once again I want to bare with you but is your first language even English?
Keep your clothes on.
LOL.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2009, 11:11:35 AM »
Quote from: Viper-X
Once again I want to bare with you but is your first language even English?

Keep your clothes on.

Are you even old enough for a job? I really hope I'm not on a site filled with children... Although that would explain a lot.

If you have any further arguments you want to offer and be trumped in, go right ahead. Maybe one of these times you'll make a valid point somehow that can't be disproved using simple grade 5 science and physics. But you're starting to sound like Tom replying to things OTHER than what you seem to be quoting in the post.

If Keep your cloths on was a joke referring to the word "bare" I used in the quote, your grammar and punctuation is terrible. The fact you italicized the "on" just shows how little grammatical structure you have the mental capacity to work with.

Another thing you'd expect from children. I won't be replying to any more posts of yours.

I just wanna hear what Tom has to say.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 11:13:54 AM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2009, 11:14:59 AM »
Quote from: Viper-X
Tom, the light bulb is circle, the light is spinning slowly in a circle... The light will only go so far, THE DISTANCE IN WHICH THE LIGHT TRAVELS IS THE SAME IN ALL DIRECTIONS. THE LIGHT IS CIRCLE BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS MOVING IN A CIRCLE. With a FLAT surface to reflect light, all light will once again, using YOUR EXAMPLE, travel the same distance as all the surrounding light, creating a FLAT, NON CIRCULAR reflection of light.

Once again I must ask are you getting paid for this in any way?

Still waiting to hear back on this. You remind me of NIST, the organization hired to explain how 9/11 was possible, but failed tremendously in doing so.

You claimed it was a fisheye lens; I explained why you were wrong using facts.

You claimed light forms bubbles for some reason; I explained how this only happen when the light is coming from a light SOURCE using facts. Something reflecting light is not a light SOURCE. It may be a source of YOUR LIGHT that you use, but it is not the original source.

I've got a new question Tom... If you're so certain about the flat Earth, why do you continuously use assumptions and misguided hunches that you've never even attempted to investigate, and find out if there's any relevance?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 11:21:00 AM by Viper-X »

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2009, 12:36:36 PM »
Quote from: Viper-X
Once again I want to bare with you but is your first language even English?

Keep your clothes on.

If Keep your cloths on was a joke referring to the word "bare" I used in the quote, your grammar and punctuation is terrible. The fact you italicized the "on" just shows how little grammatical structure you have the mental capacity to work with.

Is it okay if I italicize clothes?


Quote
If you have any further arguments you want to offer and be trumped in, go right ahead. Maybe one of these times you'll make a valid point somehow that can't be disproved using simple grade 5 science and physics.

It's not a valid point, but can't we agree to call the sun "plasma" rather than liquid?


I won't be replying to any of your posts either. Except when my judgement gets ill.




( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2009, 12:56:09 PM »
Call it whatever you want. You already call the Earth flat so I guess you've started in this practice.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2009, 01:06:23 PM »
Call it whatever you want. You already call the Earth flat so I guess you've started in this practice.

I find that confronting my assumptions can be enlightening. Or at least diverting.  Anyhow, what is the mainstream RE-er position? Is it that the sun is a liquid?

( ) or _ ?

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2009, 01:14:53 PM »
I love how Tom dropped off the map in this thread after I thoroughly proved him wrong. Makes me feel all giddy inside. ;D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2009, 01:19:51 PM »
I love how Tom dropped off the map in this thread after I thoroughly proved him wrong. Makes me feel all giddy inside. ;D
You did no such thing.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2009, 01:21:58 PM »
I love how Tom dropped off the map in this thread after I thoroughly proved him wrong. Makes me feel all giddy inside. ;D
You did no such thing.

I'm still waiting for you to prove you know more about physics than me.

And yes I did, he's off in other topics right now posting, but has ignored my last post directed at him. In my mind, that means he has nothing in order to retract my statement.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2009, 01:37:37 PM »
I love how Tom dropped off the map in this thread after I thoroughly proved him wrong. Makes me feel all giddy inside. ;D
You did no such thing.

I'm still waiting for you to prove you know more about physics than me.

And yes I did, he's off in other topics right now posting, but has ignored my last post directed at him. In my mind, that means he has nothing in order to retract my statement.
You have demonstrated no knowledge of anything physics related. Ever.


As far as I know you still think it is possible to accelerate an object past the speed of light.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2009, 01:44:13 PM »
I love how Tom dropped off the map in this thread after I thoroughly proved him wrong. Makes me feel all giddy inside. ;D
You did no such thing.

I'm still waiting for you to prove you know more about physics than me.

And yes I did, he's off in other topics right now posting, but has ignored my last post directed at him. In my mind, that means he has nothing in order to retract my statement.
You have demonstrated no knowledge of anything physics related. Ever.


As far as I know you still think it is possible to accelerate an object past the speed of light.

Well, your knowledge is wrong, I admitted that reaching the speed of light is impossible (in theory) in that thread. Go back and read it and you will see where I said that.

And I can say the same about you thinking the Earth is flat, when all of modern physics supports a RE 100%. So who knows more about physics?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2009, 01:51:37 PM »
Are you two going to have a physics-off? Awesome.
( ) or _ ?

Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2009, 01:57:39 PM »
Are you two going to have a physics-off? Awesome.

You're the forum drone. You lurk from thread to thread only to contribute the most trivial and pointless comments...

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2009, 02:00:48 PM »
Are you two going to have a physics-off? Awesome.

 ??? ::) >:(
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.