On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment

  • 45 Replies
  • 7938 Views
?

sirTheMore

  • 203
  • Hello kind gentlemen.
On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« on: April 13, 2012, 09:57:55 AM »
There is some slight curvature to the horizon at very high altitudes near the edge of space, but this is because the observer is looking down at a circle. Pictures from the concord and amateur high altitude balloons are not faked.
...

Warmest of sirs,
Would this not disprove the notion of the so-called "infinite plane" theory?
Kind regards,
sirTheMore


Kind gentlemen, I do wish to declare that although these fora are for the sole purpose of education of the flat earth, I would also enjoy expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to post in them.  Thank you all for your time and interest in this subject.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2012, 10:43:20 AM »
The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2012, 12:05:05 PM »
The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.
Nope. The terminator is not located at the horizon in all of those efforts. The degree of curvature is correlated to the height of the observer, not the time of day. The observer should still see the unlit FE beyond the terminator, but does not.

This is yet another case of Tom Bishop making a special pleading as though he knew it all along.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

sirTheMore

  • 203
  • Hello kind gentlemen.
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2012, 12:09:33 PM »
The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.


Thank you for this clarification Tom.  But might I probe you a little deeper?  Would the "circle of light" you are referring to in fact be the sun's spotlight that is common in FET?
I present my most humble of thanks for your time and consideration on this matter.
Best,
sirTheMore


Kind gentlemen, I do wish to declare that although these fora are for the sole purpose of education of the flat earth, I would also enjoy expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to post in them.  Thank you all for your time and interest in this subject.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2012, 12:30:12 PM »
The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.
Nope. The terminator is not located at the horizon in all of those efforts. The degree of curvature is correlated to the height of the observer, not the time of day. The observer should still see the unlit FE beyond the terminator, but does not.

How can one see something unlit when it is unlit?

The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.


Thank you for this clarification Tom.  But might I probe you a little deeper?  Would the "circle of light" you are referring to in fact be the sun's spotlight that is common in FET?
I present my most humble of thanks for your time and consideration on this matter.
Best,
sirTheMore



Yes, the sun's light is the circle of light I am referencing.

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2012, 12:32:27 PM »
The observer is looking down at a circle of light, not the circle of the earth.
Nope. The terminator is not located at the horizon in all of those efforts. The degree of curvature is correlated to the height of the observer, not the time of day. The observer should still see the unlit FE beyond the terminator, but does not.

How can one see something unlit when it is unlit?
The same way one sees a shadow, easily.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2012, 12:34:50 PM »
How can one see something unlit when it is unlit?

Carefully. And radar.

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2012, 03:59:10 PM »
Your field of vision is circular, therefore the horizon will appear circular regardless of the sunlight terminator.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2012, 04:02:37 PM »
The same way one sees a shadow, easily.

Blackness is a lack of data. You can't see a shadow.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 04:05:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2012, 04:04:30 PM »
The same way one sees a shadow, easily.

Blackness is a lack of data. You can't see a shadow.
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.
God bless the Enclave.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2012, 04:06:28 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2012, 06:19:27 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?
God bless the Enclave.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2012, 06:53:44 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2012, 06:57:02 PM »
The same way one sees a shadow, easily.

Blackness is a lack of data. You can't see a shadow.

Radar.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2012, 06:59:41 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?
God bless the Enclave.

?

sirTheMore

  • 203
  • Hello kind gentlemen.
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2012, 07:37:32 PM »

Warmest of gentlemen,
I have presented my query and received a satisfactory response.  This thread has fulfilled its purpose.
Be blessed,
sirTheMore


Kind gentlemen, I do wish to declare that although these fora are for the sole purpose of education of the flat earth, I would also enjoy expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to post in them.  Thank you all for your time and interest in this subject.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2012, 08:24:35 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?

You would never find a box that resonates nothing.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2012, 08:29:45 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?

You would never find a box that resonates nothing.
Irrelevant.
God bless the Enclave.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2012, 08:32:38 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?

You would never find a box that resonates nothing.
Irrelevant.

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2012, 08:41:29 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?

You would never find a box that resonates nothing.
Irrelevant.

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.
Would you not document that datapoint as zero?
God bless the Enclave.

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2012, 09:28:37 PM »
What about with the moon?
You can see, when it has eclipsed, a black circle where it is at.

You observed an absence of data, not data in itself.
Is not absence of data data of some kind?

No.
So, as a scientist, finding absolute nothing would not be documented?
Let's say you found a box that resonated nothing. Would that not be significant?

You would never find a box that resonates nothing.
Irrelevant.

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.
ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

@ TomBishop: Can you see the shadow in the following photo?

« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 09:35:13 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2012, 09:41:28 PM »
ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2012, 09:46:31 PM »
Absence of data is not equivalent to a zero data value. In the shadow example, you are looking at something and obtaining zero visual data from said thing. This isn't the same at looking at something and obtaining a visual data of zero. A visual data of zero would be looking at a wall and observing that there is no wall where you are looking, not being unable to see the wall. A quantitative version of this might be that one is testing for salinity only to find that one's meter is out of battery. What CT is talking about would be testing for salinity and finding a value of 0 ppt.

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2012, 09:48:46 PM »

ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2012, 09:50:49 PM »

ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.

www.rif.org

And?

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2012, 09:52:58 PM »

ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.

www.rif.org

Where did I claim that zero values are not data? I asked a question and made an observation.
OKay, yes, I made a reasonable assumption at your meaning. I'm sure that you will now tell us the answer to: Why would you be concerned that any data point would be zero and why wouldn't you record those values to document the properties of the box without question?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2012, 09:53:34 PM »

ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.

www.rif.org

Where did I claim that zero values are not data? I asked a question and made an observation.
OKay, yes, I made a reasonable assumption at your meaning. I'm sure that you will now tell us the answer to: Why would you be concerned that any data point would be zero and why wouldn't you record those values to document the properties of the box without question?

Irrelevant to my questions.

Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2012, 09:55:15 PM »

ITT: Rushy doesn't realize that zero values are data too.

Where did I claim otherwise?

What would I record in order to annotate the existence of this box? Any data point would be zero.

www.rif.org

Where did I claim that zero values are not data? I asked a question and made an observation.
OKay, yes, I made a reasonable assumption at your meaning. I'm sure that you will now tell us the answer to: Why would you be concerned that any data point would be zero and why wouldn't you record those values to document the properties of the box without question?

Irrelevant to my questions.
Then I have nothing but contempt for your useless post.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2012, 10:00:33 PM »
Then I have nothing but contempt for your useless post.

Should I annotate this response as a negative value point or a zero? You could say zero represents the lack of response, but then how many zeroes would I annotate should someone not respond? How many possible responses would there assumed to be? Should I assume that every registered user on the site could have responded to my post? That is a lot of zeroes! Decisions, decisions.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: On the Notion of a Tom Bishop Comment
« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2012, 10:05:32 PM »
Then I have nothing but contempt for your useless post.

Should I annotate this response as a negative value point or a zero? You could say zero represents the lack of response, but then how many zeroes would I annotate should someone not respond? How many possible responses would there assumed to be? Should I assume that every registered user on the site could have responded to my post? That is a lot of zeroes! Decisions, decisions.
I am not sure where you get this.
Zero means Zero.
You don't need more than one unless there is a number prior to it.
1000 - 1000 = 0.
Not 0000.
Well, technically it does, but you don't write it like that. That'd be confusing.
God bless the Enclave.